Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Anatomy article can be very difficult to understand for non-medical lay readers, with all the references to medial/lateral, superior/inferior. Additionally, editors may be tempted to at a later date replace these with 'simpler' but less correct variants, eg superior = above, inferior/below. What would thoughts be on including a standard link in Anatomy articles (for example in the infobox or nav boxes) relating to a new article, Anatomical terminology, that explains these terms? --LT910001 (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this may be a good idea, because their is a reason for the complex terminology, and to remove it would be to retract from the article. There are two articles out there Anatomical terms of location & Anatomical terms of motion, but neither of them is very clear, and for the layman not willing to put in quite a deal of energy very difficult to understand, it may be good to create Anatomical terminology with a rather more summary approach, and to make it only refer to human anatomy.
In my opinion I think the best resource in understanding the terminology is in image form, and Anatomical terms of motion doesn't have any at all - which might be a place to start.
A few good resources (non-free) I found right off the bat are:
I can see this taking a bit of work, but as a collaborative effort it's a good idea. (I had a week off, which is why I've been able to edit quite a bit over that time, but this seems to be a good thing to try and keep up when I have less time.)
I'm not sure how this goes with WP:NODISCLAIMERS, but I think a link at the top of the page in this style would be ok (could it land under the technical clause?):

This article uses anatomical terminology, for an overview see Anatomical terminology

-- CFCF (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded a handful of the free images at Commons:Category:CNX (take a look). Was a great resource with exactly the right type of pictures, and everything is free. I just keep finding to many things to upload, I'm almost wishing I don't find any more. Going to make a list soon so that I can get help.CFCF (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! That's brilliant. I think I will include this in the 'see also' section of the pages I edit. I think although we should assume readers are somewhat familiar with anatomical terms, it should be included for lay readers. --LT910001 (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I have created this as the {{Anatomy-terms}}. eg:

This article uses anatomical terminology.

Feel free to make any minor amendments, and to start including in articles! --LT910001 (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That looks good, but I realise now that this was a very overlooked aspect of wikipedia. Medical terminology along with the other articles is in dire need of an update. I have started on Anatomical terminology by using the text from [4]. The draft is at User:CFCF/sandbox/Anatomical terminology. I'll be filling it up on my spare time.CFCF (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I'll happily contribute to the article in your sandbox. --LT910001 (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
A little bit of work and that page will be up to scratch. I realise now I asked if we needed occlusion and retrusion in the article, and they aren't even present in the Anatomical terms of motion entry - something which needs to be looked at.CFCF (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
We also need a better description of basic anatomical terminology (not those unsourced essays in the originals!). Once that article is above water level, we can start to redirect relevant anatomical terms there. Another term we may need to define is 'anastamosis' and 'paired', if they're not included. --LT910001 (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
International scientific vocabulary also needs to be mentioned. What do you make of User:CFCF/sandbox/Anatomical terminology, how much work till it can be out and replace the other articles?CFCF (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it needs a lot of trimming and sourcing. I'll take my axe to it later, if you have no objections. --LT910001 (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Go ahead by all means. I have trimmed quite a bit, but more is definitely needed. Some parts shouldn't be removed as they are more extensive than the main articles. I posted over at WP:MED about this, to see if we can get some more people to help in this (I think there may be a few willing souls from there).
Then there is the question of the sourcing. The entire text is essentially copied from an open, secondary source so the little disclaimer at the bottom actually does hold reference to all the text. I have instead gone to care to make sure that any new text I've added has a citation missing tag added to it (or relevant citation).
-- CFCF (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorporating 'paired' into infoboxes

I feel infoboxes are the best place to report whether or not a structure is paired, as it's a standard reporting criteria for anatomical things. I am considering a criteria using abbr, for example, something like: paired. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, It's a convenient way to inform. Maybe here could be added Anastomosed to arteries/veins as well? CFCF (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Purge of inactive members

I've been looking over the list of active members on the project main page, and some haven't edited Wikipedia at all since at least 2009, and some of those haven't been active in anything anatomy related for even longer. Maybe we should perform a purge removing inactive users, so as to see which ones are still actively working on the project. We don't have to remove the old ones, just move them to an inactive list.

-- CFCF (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks CFCF! Good idea. A similar thing was done on WikiProject Medicine (WP:Med). I agree; just move the inactive users to a new list. It would be nice to know about the active users here. LT910001 (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Now just how to do it LT910001. Do we just make a new list Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Participants and have two lists. Move everyone who hasn't commented on this page, say the last month to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Participants#Inactive and tell them to write on their walls? CFCF (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I've started the section, I just divided the list into two sections (similar to the WPMED approach). --LT910001 (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Have completed the census. About half of the members have made >1 edit in the last 6 months. --LT910001 (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Great work! -- CFCF (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles being updated as part of courses

These articles need to be looked through once this college semester is over.


(See archives for more)

-- CFCF (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for focus of Good article nominations

Studying anatomy my self a while ago I realised how good wikipedia was as an encyclopedia for individual structures, and many of the entries on wikipedia have more and better images than in the best of modern text-books. The text accompanying them is also often of very high quality. An area where wikipedia lags behind on the other hand is in intoductory texts.

My suggestion is to take care and make all these articles up to scratch with newer text, images, and links so that they may lead to more learning and so that the texts themselves can be found easily. This in turn may attract more lay-readers and more student to contribute to the project.

Terminology

The fact that I after 2-3 days searching found this article Human anatomical terms is to me a sign that it is too well hidden and not linked to enough.

User:CFCF/sandbox/Anatomical terminology is coming on nicely, and has incorporated more text from the article human anatomical terms. This text will gradually replace Human anatomical terms.

The articles needing some work to reflect the presence of the new article are:

The body

Apart from these two which I deem need to be of high quality for the project to move further I have found 4 articles with nearly the exact same content. Some of these do not fall under our project, but I would like to merge or at least rewrite them, and make them fall under us as well as the other groups. They are:

If these could be narrowed down to: Human body (encompassing both physiology and anatomy with the acceptance that they may later be split if they turn too long, as of now neither article is very extensive) and Biological systems we could get a load off our backs.

The suggestion I propose is therefore: To get following two articles to good article status:

and to update and expand/refine following articles:

-- CFCF (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Am of one mind with you on both issues. Feel we could consider moving the two anatomical terms articles to list-type articles. I think that might solve some problems with scope. --LT910001 (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, the human body article receives over 65,000 monthly views, so constructive edits have the potential to reach a large number of people. --LT910001 (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Merging the Body article into the Body (disambiguation) page

Comments are needed on this matter: Talk:Body#Merge with disambiguation page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Intersex article

Like I stated at WP:MED, the Intersex article could use help from this WikiProject. A class is currently working on that article and it's quickly become a dumping ground for all sorts of intersex material, with formatting issues and the like. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I believe this fully lands under WP:MED, but seeing as most contributors here also do work there it wasn't completely wrong to try. -- CFCF (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The topic of intersex is not far off from the topic of anatomy; it has a lot to do with anatomy, which is why it makes sense to me that this project be alerted to the aforementioned matter. However, one thing to consider is this project's scope (what it does and does not focus on; currently, the Scope section states, "This particular project supports all articles on human anatomy."). Either way, I understand the view that this matter is more so, even significantly more so, a WP:MED matter. Flyer22 (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Anatomical terms of motion

I've done some work searching about what articles we have on Wikipedia that might add to Anatomical terms of motion and I've found a bunch that really really need to be integrated into that article. As it is now some very crucial terms have small articles that are poorly sourced, not referenced and lack any form of larger perspective. This means that the main article needs quite a bit of work. CFCF (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC) Some thoughts:

  • As a trial, I have redirected the articles on extension and flexion to the Anatomical terminology page, and moved the list of muscles to separate pages (List of flexors of the human body, List of extensors of the human body). I have then provided links to the lists in the main terminology article. Thoughts?
  • There significant overlap between content in the Anatomical terms of motion and Anatomical terminology articles. Suggest that we either (1) merge the terms of motion article into the Anatomical terminology article, or (2) truncate the section in Anatomical terminology. Merging both articles has the benefit of making editing easier and centralising information, but separate articles allows for more in-depth explanations. Truncating the information in Anatomical terminology may be a better solution,. The information could be pared down to a section similar to the relative location section, with a more in-depth explanation provided in the terms of motion article.
  • Lastly, I feel the point above needs to be clarified before we work out what to do with the terms of motion articles (abduction / adduction etc.) and where to redirect them.

Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel we have reached a good balance between the two articles now. Anatomical terminology has a brief description, and Anatomical terms of motion has a more detailed description and, I hope, some images to illustrate this for the various terms. There are two articles that are still pending a merge, as they have additional content that I'm not quite sure where to put. I think the supination content may have a place on the articles for the respective muscles, and the 'hyper' in extension has already been noted in 'terms of motion' has already been duplicated. Now our to-do list for this article is: --LT910001 (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Copy-edit
  • Add reliable sources
  • Flesh out images

Guidelines

On the review of the mylohyoid muscle (here), Lesion legitimately points out that there is conflicting advice given with regard to the structure of anatomical articles. Additionally, I do not believe the current guidelines are suitable for minor anatomical structures. These structures often have no social and cultural significance, and very little is known about their presence in animals. Of the presence in animals, I would argue that in the vast majority, this is only used to elucidate the structure in humans and is not 'notable' enough for an encyclopedia unless there is significant variation.

To be clear about what I mean about 'minor structure' I mean specific arteries, nerves, veins and muscles that are often small anatomically, localised, and only rarely have clinical significance. For example, the mylohyoid muscle and the suspensory muscle of the duodenum are two I have been working on.

I believe that it should be practically possible to get articles on minor anatomical structures to GA status, as many of these have the benefit of being extremely specific, and thus information is easy to gather. I am proposing a new structure to be incorporated into the guidelines for these articles:

  • 'Parent article about minor structure'
    • 'Structure' including insertion and attachment (muscles) and course
      • 'Variation' included as a subheading under structure - this is often very small for these structures and refers to how the structure manifests. This may include variation in animals.
      • 'Embryology' included under structure (or function, if this is more applicable), as this is often a small section that directly relates to how the structure develops
    • 'Function' detailing the use of the structure physiologically
    • 'Clinical relevance' briefly detailing the effects of a diseased structure, congenital abnormalities, and and uses of the structure in treatment. There should be no information here that does not have a parent article (so as to keep Anatomy/medicine separate and reduce eventual duplication)
    • 'History' including any social and cultural references

Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It does seem difficult to thin of a universal guideline for anatomy articles, but I think we should aim for this. As you point out, there will be several different flavors of anatomy article, e.g.: system, organ, muscle, vessel, etc etc.
The above layout seems OK. People might be better able to assess it once there is a good example article following the structure. Lesion (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
As a background, the content at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Guidelines was created years ago and then ignored. Its content was then merged into WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy and slightly expanded. The old guidelines were left in place and untouched here until I marked them as historical a few weeks ago.
I think using the guidelines at MEDMOS is a good starting point, and I agree that the goal should be to have 1 guideline to cover all anatomical parts (maybe except for systems). Eventually, the WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy section should be expanded to look analogous to WP:MEDMOS#Diseases or disorders or syndromes, including a short header explaining that some sections are optional. Something like, "Anatomy articles can achieve a level of consistency by limiting their top-level headers to those specified below. However, articles on minor/smaller structures may be better suited by merging some of the sections." The individual bulleted sections should have more extensive explanations of the expected content. I'd keep the headers listed at MEDMOS, as they seem more generalizable to all anatomy, and add in some of the explanations above on this page. I'd recommend that we discuss the ideal structure here (or at WT:MEDMOS) before making any changes to MEDMOS directly. --Scott Alter (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's quite interesting to read. The change I propose isn't to MEDMOS but here. I agree with you that we should try and keep the same structure as proposed in MEDMOS, and think that is reasonable to have a generalised guideline at MEDMOS for Anatomy articles in general, and then a set of more specific guidelines within this project for different Anatomy articles. As lesion points out, there are several different types of Anatomy article that may warrant different structures. The problem with simply using the WPMED guidelines proposed on WPMED as they stand is (1) that the are unsuited to the different flavours of Anatomy articles and (2) that, as with the guidelines for medical specialities, I do not believe there are any examples of good articles, and very few examples of B-class articles, that follow the guidelines. Given the timespan the guidelines have existed for, that implies to me that they are not well suited to curating articles and that those two guidelines may need to be changed. Secondly, as my proposed change relates to a subset of Anatomy articles, I feel is it more suitable to localise this discussion here. --LT910001 (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm with you LT910001, but I don't think there will be any resistance against updating the anatomy section of MEDMOS. As you said, many articles can't feasibly contain all those headers. It seems like a bad idea to stop articles from reaching GA because there isn't anything on comparative anatomy - there might not even be anything to add. CFCF (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I've currently nominated the image Image:Sobo 1909 260.png for feature image. The reasoning behind my nomintion is that it is a high-quality image from a respectable anatomy text-book without any similar images on Wikipedia. It is in my view easy on the eyes, informative without being overly explicit, and a very high quality retouched scan. It holds both artistic and educational merit. See here for the nomination Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sobo 1909 260. Please add any relevant comments or if you wish your support. Voting ends on the 19th. CFCF (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Assumed inert WikiProject.

Is this project inert or dead?

I can't really tell and I would really like to participate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamerbro (talk • contribs) 03:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. In answer to your question it appears active to me, although all these users are also active on WP:MED. Lesion (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Hamerbro, I'm currently rather active in this project, along with LT910001, so it is most certainly not dead or inert, we just aren't that big. I've been working a lot on getting anatomical images, while Lt has been improving articles. The problem as of now is we can't really tell which are our most popular articles.
A list of tasks is available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Open Tasks,and is up to date. This is merely a suggestion of tasks to help out with, and we'd be more than happy to direct you to other things needing work if you'd like. Do you have any special area of expertise, or anything in particular you'd like to work on? CFCF (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi! We are certainly not dead, although we are not many. CFCF and I are both interested in collaborating, and if you have any particular area of expertise or interest we'd be happy to collaborate with you. We're currently working on the Human body and Anatomical terminology, which are in dire need of significant copyedits and sourcing. Additionally, this entire project is in dire need of sourcing, so adding information sources on any article would be of great assistance. Hope to hear more from you in the future! --LT910001 (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Perfect! I really delve into the nervous system more than anything, but I can also do sourcing. -Hamerbro
That's great, we really need someone to go through the neuroanatomy articles, as they haven't seen much love for a time. If you need image sources I've uploaded some here that may be of use: User:CFCF/Sobotta. Images from the third volume include quite a few of the brain etc. They're not all uploaded there, but I will fill up the list. Don't hesitate to ask if you need help with anything. P.S. sign your posts here with ~~~~, and everyone will see when you wrote it. CFCF (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Five organs and six viscera of Chinese Medicine: Zang-fu

An odd drive is planned starting today! (which sort of relates to WP:Anatomy) I'd like to, as one of my small drives, add a section to each of the eleven organs mentioned in Zang-fu. These organs constitute one of the basic theories of Chinese medicine and regardless of their medical validity, I feel it would be suitable and encyclopedic to include a section in each of the anatomy articles regarding the perception of the organ in Chinese medicine. The first challenge would be to find a decent source (most likely a textbook) to provide this information. This also offers a way to systematically edit a bunch of articles of primary importance to this project, so I will use this opportunity to improve the overall quality of the articles as well. Would value some opinions about this, and whether or not there's any support to merge Small intestine (Chinese medicine) into the main Small intestine article (or merge it in part, moving the rest to the Zang-fu article). Also looks like the entire set of articles will need some massive copyediting. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the treatment of chakras in Wikipedia could be good example for zang-fu and its related concept. (To say, in anatomy articles, mentioning zang-fu concept very briefly as a historical or cultural information. And place for detailed explanation about that is outside of anatomy articles.) Concepts of chakras in Inidian tradition are not scientific term today at all, but it has its own historical or cultural or philosophical values. Situation for zang-fu would be similar (as far as I googled, concepts of zang-fu had firstly appeared in ja:黄帝内経 (Huangdi Neijing), the book written over 2,000 year ago.) Though sources should be English text in English Wikipedia, I can help something providing sources in Japanese. Currently the main article Zang-fu is not developed, so merging content from small separated articles into main article is reasonable. --Was a bee (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on merge

Have proposed a merge on Eye movement here (Talk:Eye_movement). Would value some comment. As it is, the main article is a disambig page, which makes no sense... I suggest we move the main content (sensory) back to the disambig page, then provide examples of applications in use to the other articles. It is strange and somewhat ludicrous to think that eye movement (sensory), which is literally eye movement, is given the same prominence as eye movement (in music). With some edits I plan to make, I envision a future where these articles can happily coexist on a page that is not a disambig page. Would value some comment or support on the article's talk page for this. --LT910001 (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change to MOS for Anatomy articles

Per our many discussions, I have proposed a change to the MOS for Anatomy articles here (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Anatomy_guidelines), and would value the input and (hopefully!) support of other users. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Articular facet & Joint

I suggested the merge of these two articles in November, but haven't come far enough to finish it. Upon investigation the only source I've found for articular facet is http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=31339 . As someone who has learned latin anatomical terminology, is this the commonly used definition? (Maybe I should get my own medical dictionary.) I might start working on Joint as well, as that article really needs it. CFCF (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my own understanding was that it was any old articulation. CFCF (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know Latin and the definition of the term. However I searched its usage in TA and FMA. TA has 31 entries which include the word "articular facet" (I searched at this page with CTRL+F). FMA has 378 entries[5]. In my thought, I suppose articular facet is good to be disambiguation page (WP:DAB). --Was a bee (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Great, I'd be happy to help if you need an extra pair of hands. --LT910001 (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Pages are merged, but I haven't started on the article yet. Currently working on CNS in my sandbox, will move over to joint as soon as I get CNS & PNS articles up to shape. Aiming at B-class, can hopefully also reach the DYK as expansion is considerable. CFCF (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Central nervous system

This article is made to replace the current one at central nervous system. It is not yet ready, but I am currently working on sourcing it properly as well as going through the disposition etc. If anyone would be willing to lend a hand please do so, but bear in mind it is still only at a very early stage. CFCF (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Rolled out, see CNS CFCF (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Fantastic, keep up the good work! Just reclaimed my editing gloves, been busy working on some of the smaller drives. --LT910001 (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Vital article project

Clitoris is a "vital article" (nominally, at least), whereas Human body is not. Insane. Request for swap is here (Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Swap:_Remove_Clitoris.2C_add_Human_body). --LT910001 (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Not at all insane, and there I have given my view why it's not. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the OP is referring to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Anatomy and morphology, 101. Reviewing that list shows that "insane" is wildly mistaken. I guess human body might be added to the "Basic anatomy" overview section, but there is no reason to remove any of the articles already listed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Anatomical terms of tissue

I propose creating a single page which can hold:

  • Anatomical terms relating to muscles (Agonist (muscle), Antagonist (muscle), Insertion, Origin, Unipennate, ...)
  • Anatomical terms relating to bones (See Bone#Terminology)
  • Anatomical terms that currently have their own short articles (Anastamoses, foramen, ...)

Lists of terms can be redirected to a "List of..." article.

Thoughts? This would be another opportunity to significantly centralise existing information. Ping to CFCF... what shall we call this, and what shall the scope be? --LT910001 (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As for agonist/antagonist, insertion etc etc. I suggest they be merged into respective kinesiology/muscle articles. For bone terminology I can't really say what is best. Currently we have a list in the middle of an article where is fits decently. The problem is I can't tell where it would be better placed, it should not make up a new article in my opinion.
Anastomose is a decent article covering more than just vertebrate anatomy and I think it should remain, even though we will seldom have need to link further than Anatomical terminology. As for foramen it is only a disambiguation page, and it may very well remain, but there is little need to link to it. CFCF (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, actually I was the one who disambiguated it. There are a set of anatomy articles relating to basic topics like this, that I can't think of off the top of my head, that I feel are quite unlikely to be expanded in the foreseeable future, and I've been thinking how to neatly organise them. These articles generally follow the form: (1) define thing, (2) provide a list of every instance of that thing in the body, and (3) provide etymology; and that is all. I've been giving thought to marking the majority of those articles as {{Set index article}}

The question remains what to do with Bone terminology and muscle terminology, as I feel these should not be covered on the Muscle/Bone articles, as the subject matter is quite distinct; what if these were moved to Anatomical terms relating to muscles and Anatomical terms relating to bones, respectively? --LT910001 (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Lists

Am considering creating the following as a way of organising our articles (possibly):

Request for comments:--LT910001 (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Firstly, which is better: "List of X of the human body", or "List of human X"?
  • Secondly, how to reconcile this with Outline of human anatomy, which appears to already contain the majority of these things? Leave outline as is, transpose content to the new lists?
I think the more articles we make the harder it will be to keep them all up to date. My personal suggestion is simply to redirect the lists to Outline of human anatomy, and use that article as the main. The benefit isn't less because they are all in one article. You're going to use the page to find structures that are relevant, and it may very well act as a form of directory. That is just my suggestion, but I think it is best.CFCF (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll give some thought into integrating them nicely into the outline. I have been finding some lists of arteries/veins in some articles and was unsure where to link to in those articles. I am feeling quite overloaded with the amount of forms of administration that we have now: "Outlines of...", Vital articles, categories, project categorisations. My ultimate intention is (1) to have a useful place to store this information that can be (2) linked in articles (eg in articles about major blood vessels or nerves). --LT910001 (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Have to agree with CFCF that a main page would be better... perhaps the title "outline of human anatomy" is not ideal. Consider instead "List of human anatomy articles"? Lesion (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
That's a good point, however I feel if I introduce any more organisation into that article it'll be sprawling. The organisation I'd like to add is something like List of human muscles by location and List of human muscles by action, two very useful lists which could be linked from a number of articles. What would your opinion be about that, Lesion? Making changes to the outline, whilst it is comprehensive, will make it even larger and more unwieldy, so I'd rather isolate the content in an existing article. --LT910001 (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Edit: I'm adding and amending this list with articles that already exist, and renaming them to a standard form. --LT910001 (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
It is a long article already. I just thought it would be easier to have everything in one place, but if this is unwieldy maybe making sub lists is good. Lesion (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion, Lesion. I'm going to consider splitting because such a large list will not get as updated, and is not as easy or logical to use as a more targeted article (eg, to link from or contain more specialised information). I started looking into this when I was updating some articles, and on that note, would value your cursory opinion about what should be done with our bloated mass, with items duplicated here there and everywhere, as documented here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy/Open_Tasks#Organise_WP:ANATOMY. --LT910001 (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

On of the depressing/enjoyable things about wiki is that the deeper you look the more work you find to do... The articles you have listed in that open tast, are they your intended structure, or simply an inventory of what currently exists? Lesion (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

：Just an inventory. I'm discovering that each project has its unique characteristics... WP:ANATOMY's is that we tend to have 5 places that all say the same thing, all written by different edits, none of which is high quality =P. --LT910001 (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Systems

Have just discovered WP:SYSTEMS, who may provide members interested in collaboration on our systems-based articles (found here: Human body#Systems). --LT910001 (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hard tissue

Found what I consider a significant redlink. I think there are 5 tissue types which can be called hard tissue: bone, cartilage, enamel, dentin and cementum. A nice stub for someone who might covet the missing article trophy... Lesion (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Or! A disambiguation page pointing to the five articles that already exist! :D --LT910001 (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes DAB would be appropriate. Soft tissue is more than a dab, but it is a bit strange, and reads more like a math article... Lesion (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Roll-out of Welcoming & Sourcing templates

We're quite a small WikiProject, and I think it's important to do outreach work where possible. I sometimes see new editors working on articles, and would like to contact them to invite them to the project. A standard template for contacting new users is easier for to use, may be more visually appealing template, and helps standardise what is said. I've created a draft of this template in my namespace here (User:LT910001/4), and also transcluded below:

A second template I've created (Although only had to use once) is a standard template for displaying to users who have been editing but don't add sources to their edits, which is an irritating and substantial issue on this project. That draft is here (User:LT910001/3), and also transcluded below.

I'd love some feedback from other members of the WikiProject, as I will move these to main-space soon. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The second picture is a bit gruesome? Should the image to represent WPANAT not depict any pathology but rather normal anatomy? Lesion (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree, although the image is fine for what it illustrates I think there are those that would be put off from joining in. The first template is the best in my view, and it already states the bit about sourcing which is great. CFCF (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! The choice of images is quite arbitrary; I find both of high quality. Have chanced the second image (Well, will change in a matter of minutes) Frankly, I don't expect the second template to be used that much, but I did want a template that can be used to remind users who are uploading willy-nilly without any sourcing. --LT910001 (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, having a bit of trouble finding a good replacement. Any suggestions for substitutes? --LT910001 (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: The below proposal by me (Flyer22) was taken from LT910001's talk page.

[Concerning the templates below that display as sections] Hey, LT910001. Considering what has been discussed at WP:MEDMOS at different points with regard to its layouts (about not always strictly following them), including in the most recent discussion there (this time concerning the anatomy layout), I believe that this anatomy template should at least mention that not every anatomy article will be best suited for that exact layout (meaning though it should obviously follow some material presented there, such as having a Structure section if the article is big enough to have one, it does not have to follow that layout exactly). Otherwise, this template completely neglects to acknowledge to editors what WP:MEDMOS acknowledges: "Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors. The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition. Do not discourage potential readers by placing a highly technical section near the start of your article."

With the aforementioned template, new editors (new to Wikipedia, not just to editing anatomy articles) are especially going to be overzealous in applying the anatomy layout without any regard to the fact that an anatomy article may already have an established layout and that it perhaps works best with that established layout. Therefore, I propose that we add the words "though not every article will be best suited for this standard" (or something like that) on to the "We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article." line.

I would have brought this up on the "Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject! template" talk page, but User:LT910001/4 might one day be deleted, more likely so than your talk page at least, and I want this suggestion to remain documented/easily accessible to all Wikipedians (not just administrators with the power to see deleted talk pages). Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Righteo, will reflect this in the second template have reflected this in the template. --LT910001 (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The first template is now available as {{WPANATOMY-welcome}}

 Done Welcoming template

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject!

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, here are a few relevant things:

  • Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • We write for a general audience. Every reader should be able to understand anatomical articles, so when possible please write in a simple form—most readers do not understand anatomical jargon. See this essay for more details.

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages!

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject!

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, here are a few relevant things:

  • Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • We write for a general audience. Every reader should be able to understand anatomical articles, so when possible please write in a simple form—most readers do not understand anatomical jargon. See this essay for more details.

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages!


Anatomist90

The user User:Anatomist90 is through his/her contributions undermining the project. The user has uploaded numerous images to the Wikimedia commons, which is ok and all, but the user is adding said images to articles indiscriminately.

I have suggested a list of images where the users posts them for others to add to articles at User talk:Anatomist90#Please stop flooding articles with bad/low quality images. Very glad to get some input about the suggestion, or other ways to rectify the issue. (Also his edits need to be looked over, I've been doing a bit on my own, but we need to go back quite far.) -- CFCF (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

He upload many good photos. I think that's nice. But at the same time, I think putting all related images into Wikipedia article is not so good for general readers, rather sometimes it could generate confusion. So sometimes I clean up images of article. The scope of clean up is not only images which he added, but also images even I myself added :p. When I clean up images, I adding suitable categories to the images at Wikimedia Commons. This keeps photos being searchable even after the photo removed from the anatomy article. Some images can revive in another context or after image retouching :). For doing this task, I use WP:HotCat. --Was a bee (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
That's great, many of the images are of value, but not all of them as you say. Maybe I should take to using HotCat for that as well. Keep up the good work. CFCF (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggest we keep a log of historical copies of the worst-affected pages for re-use if needed:--LT910001 (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Add taskforces

I suggest we add taskforces for:

  • Cellular anatomy
  • Gross anatomy

To differentiate between the two.

Possibly also (may fall under WP:MED)

  • Cytology
  • Histology

CFCF (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I can certainly see where you're coming from with this, CFCF, but in my experience task forces are generally a timesink, especially if there aren't enough Wikipedians who are willing to patrol and maintain them. What would you think about changing the scope to make this differential clear (it seems we have three types of anatomy here: gross anatomy, microanatomy, and neuroanatomy), the latter two of which could be spun off to wikimed (microanatomy) and wiki neuroscience (neuroanatomy* for smaller tracts and nuclei). A second suggestion would be to focus on two or three parent articles (Human body for gross anatomy, Histology [?] for microanatomy, and Nervous system for neuroanatomy) and work on the child articles there. Will respond within a week (:D), --LT910001 (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Done! I have coded into our template the following fields:

  • Gross anatomy, microanatomy, neuroanatomy, systems anatomy, organs, and articles about anatomy itself (ie. for people, books, definitions, etc.)

To enable this, go to 'preferences' and the 'gadgets' tab. Enable 'Rater', and an automatic tool will appear on every page that lets you rate things. The rating system now has an option to mark articles with the fields above. Feeling pretty chuffed! I feel this it what you wanted, CFCF, and will also be quite useful in categorising our articles - instead of trying to climb a cliff with our teeth when trying to locate article types to improve. Happy new year to all! Signing off, --LT910001 (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That is great, its exactly the purpose and the implementation I was looking for. My only problem is I can't activate the gadget properly, it isn’t there under my gadget tab. CFCF (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
How strange, I must have confused myself; see here (User:Kephir/gadgets/rater) --LT910001 (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC
I got it working using the manual install, thanks. Hope it works on firefox, it would make that kind of work so much easier. CFCF (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It works on my Firefox; it really does make rating articles so much easier. When you see the categories I've coded, if you have any comments I'd be happy to code them.--LT910001 (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

There is another gadget there as well that is very helpful when used in conjunction with the rater: display assessment will show the current assessment rating, as well as ongoing peer reviews and good article and featured article candidates right under the article title. --WS (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Beautiful image set

Here [12], and from here [13]. The question is, are they useful? I would dearly love to use some of the images on these pages if possible, they are some really beautiful medical illustrations. CFCF, what's your opinion? --LT910001 (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There is definitely use for these images, but it may require a bit of cropping. I am currently rather busy with life and whatnot and it may take a little while before I can get started with these images, but I've added them to my to-do list. CFCF (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks CFCF, I shudder to think of how tall the existing pile of books in your to-do list is. --LT910001 (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Due to the way they have been scanned I haven't been able to crop them properly, but instead I uploaded them as they are. Feel free to use them, they are available on commons:Category:Carswell. CFCF (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Added one to Robert Carswell (pathologist) :-) --WS (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox sprawl

Problem editing occuring by this user: ‎Rsoscia, eg here [14], adding multiple infoboxes to the same pages in order to note a NeuroLex ID and nothing else. Suggest incorporate if necessary into existing infoboxes, rather than post multiple infoboxes to the same page. --LT910001 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I am interested to hear from the above mentioned user why people should not consider this promotional editing. Lesion (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Spoke too soon. User is also adding to existing infoboxes (thank goodness) and Neurolex appears to be a classification system that already exists within the brain infobox. In the course of time will integrate it into the Template:Infobox nerve for this user. --LT910001 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Keeping track of articles to focus on

With a decent bit of improvement over the last few weeks it would be really nice if we could have a list over popular pages from our WikiProject. Therefore I am requesting a listing of these, from http://toolserver.org/~alexz/pop/. CFCF (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Requests can't be filed as of now, I will make a new attempt in a week or so. CFCF (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hah! Yes I was hoping to get added us to the list in October, but was similarly disappointed. I feel we merit equal attention to, say, WP:EASTENDERS =P. I agree that it would be very useful to see what the most popular pages are so we can target some of our editing in a useful direction. --LT910001 (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Ping, so it doesn't get archived! CFCF (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Have posted at the village pump here (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Wikiproject_cleanup_and_popularity_statistics) and according the the developer, new projects should be able to be added by the end of this month. --LT910001 (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again, a reminder for everyone that getting this is a good idea (and so it doesn't get archived). Website still states November as new date. CFCF (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Have been informed this will be up and running by next week. At last! --LT910001 (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

From brief skim of Wikipedia:MED1500, it appears our three most popular articles are: --LT910001 (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That's incorrect; the Penis/Human penis and Vagina articles, for example, get viewed far more than those articles, as noted by this recent source...which was posted to the Vagina talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out, Flyer22. With any luck the popular articles will start working later this month, so we will have a more comprehensive list. --LT910001 (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Skeletal striated muscle article -- new editor working on it

We have a new editor -- Bmeador14 (talk · contribs) -- working on this article. He or she may need help and/or assistance. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, will keep an eye out. --LT910001 (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Recommendations

Am considering adding a section on recommended terminology regarding some parts of the body, so that we have somewhere to point to when we make changes. Was promoted to make this suggestion after editing articles on the hand, where there is no consensus, and some articles still use the apocryphal 'volar' which is, I believe, even less widely understood than other anatomical terminology; and the foot, where digits are referred to in a haphazard way by numerous common names and numbers, which makes it very hard to follow for laypeople. I have a few areas in mind, but am considering starting on the hand and foot. I propose creating some (non-binding) recommendations from our project group that read something like this:

Hand

Recommendation Reason Level of wiki-consensus
The anterior and posterior surfaces of the hand, in anatomical position, are referred to as the 'palmar' and 'dorsal' surfaces Uses common terminology, and does not require explanation of the anatomical position. WP:ANATOMY
The digits of the hand are referred to by their common names (eg. ring finger) Is immediately recognisable, widely understood, and does not result in errors because of misunderstood numbering. WP:ANATOMY
Example Example Example

Where wiki-consensus is graded something like (1) WP:ANATOMY (2) RFC (3) Consensus discussion / arbcom.

Thoughts? Ping to Taylornate, who has been involved in editing some hand-related articles, and may provide some insight into this matter. --LT910001 (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I think volar may have been added in articles which borrow from the 1918 Gray's anatomy. For example many palmar structures were previously refered to as volar (look at images in Gray's and Sobotta's). At best it should be mentioned in Anatomical terminology, but phasing it out of articles would be a very good idea.
As for referring to the digits of the hand I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong in using numbering, but I see that its not accessible to the lay-man so I'm not going to object to the suggestion. CFCF (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
1. Support. I think thats nice to recommend using 'palmar' instead of volar. Volar would be difficult for general readers to understand. (TA treats 'palmar' as main word, and 'volar' as synonym. A01.0.00.043).
2. Support. That would be nice to general readers. But at the same time, referring to thumb as 1 is, in part, abbreviation rather than synonym. Like referring to "Fourth cervical vertebra" as "C4". So if there are an article in which such abbreviation is needed to avoid redundant appearance, this type of wording would be nice. But at least, if editor using this kind of abbreviations, I think, editor should care about providing enough information about the abbreviations to general readers. --Was a bee (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Human height

Hi there. Just seeking input at Talk:Human_height#Why_is_height_being_expressed_in_metres.3F. Cheers.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

And again at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Human_height.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Animal anatomy

We explicitly state that we relate to human anatomy (see WP:ANATOMY#SCOPE), but I am finding quite a few articles which relate to animal anatomy and tangentially to human anatomy, so I've added a categorisation (alongside neuro, embryo, etc.) reflecting this. --LT910001 (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently checking various external link pages among anatomy articles. Then I noticed that Yahoo links of Gray'a Anatomy have many blanked pages. See Template talk:Gray's Anatomy link#Problem on Yahoo, Many blanked pages. --Was a bee (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have replied on the page. --LT910001 (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Cerebellar blood flow

What do you make of this image:

A quick sketch showing the blood flows of the AICA, PICA and SCA arteries of the cerebellumBased upon:thumbthumb

I threw it together from a reference image as well as two Sobotta images, I wasn't able to remove tha arrows, but its decent in illustrating the subject in my view. Any comments welcome, I can do more if there is a desire. CFCF (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Especially comments on whether or not the image is accurate are welcome. CFCF (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to incorporate this image into articles where it is relevant. CFCF (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Beautiful colors. I like this :) (sorry for not anatomical comment) --Was a bee (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Wisdom tooth (again)

Please comment on a discussion about how to arrange wikipedia's content relating to human third molar teeth and their associated pathologies. Thanks, Lesion (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Pudendal nerve

Fairly narrow scope anatomy article I will be working on in the next few days ... starting tomorrow =) A good opportunity to see the new anatomy guidelines in an article and to get familiar with them.

See also discussion on Talk:Pudendal nerve entrapment about renaming the page Pudendal neuropathy to reflect the wider scope of the article beyond entrapment injury (neuropraxia I presume). Lesion (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

See also discussion on Talk:Pudendal plexus, not sure how this article is different from pudendal nerve. I think "pudendal plexus" might simply refer to the 3 roots of the pudendal nerve. Possible merge. Lesion (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have online access to one of the sources in the Talk:Pudendal plexus (nerves) article (which I'm guessing is the one you meant), but the website seems to be down right now. Will take a look again tomorrow. CFCF (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes I meant nerves. When you find out pls post your findings, thanks, Lesion (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry this is late, but the book wasn't available through the internet so I borrowed it from the library. Essentially page 471 states the Lumbar plexus L1-L4, Sacral plexus L4-S4 and "Pudendal" plexus S2-S4 together form the lumbosacral plexus, and has one frontal schematic illustration of the pudendal plexus. From Gray's 1918 you have this [15], which gives some insight into the differences at least as they were percieved back then. I'd say the second statement is WP:Synth, and we could probably clarify by merging all the articles on sacral, coccygeal, pudendal plexa into one, and clarifying differences there. Just my two cents. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

We have External sphincter muscle of urethra, which is essentially a dab to external sphincter muscle of male urethra and external sphincter muscle of female urethra. While I can sort of understand the rationale to have different pages, I think it is better to have male and female subsections on the same page. Thoughts? Lesion (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely. Have also made some edits to pudendal nerve. With any luck in a few weeks it will be able to be promoted to GA status. I'm having some difficulty finding information about the history of the nerve, though.--LT910001 (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for WPANATOMY comment: Use of in-text (cranial nerve N)

Am finding in quite a few articles not about cranial nerves this: "the X is a branch of the vagus nerve (cranial nerve X)" or this "it is innervated by Y, a branch of the oculomotor nerve (cranial nerve III)

When writing articles about places, we do not write: "Nottingham is a suburb in Nottinghamshire (ONS code 37)"; or when writing about programming, we do not write: "Element is a part of programming language Y (ISO code N)"; when writing about films we do not write: "Bill Cosby is a character in The Cosby Show (Production code Y)"

The reason this is not done is that it doesn't add any useful information to the text: knowing that Y is innervated by the oculomotor nerve is useful, but knowing that the oculomotor nerve is cranial nerve III is not useful. It is tangential, tautologous, and one of the ways that readability is being impacted on our articles. I have no problem with including it on the cranial nerve pages, but I do when seeing it on other pages. Lumping the two phrases together is a mnemonic device used by anatomists and medical practitioners but I don't think it helps lay readers. Anyhow, this is just my opinion, what are the opinion of other Anatomy editors about of the extra "(cranial nerve N)" after every mention of a particular cranial nerve? An odd gripe, I know.

Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Had missed your question, but I'm totally behind you on this one. I don't think there is any need to explain what the vagus is in every article that refers to it. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Have to disagree, I think for the first instance when the nerve is mentioned on an article it is potentially useful to mention its roman numeral. Disagree that it does not help "lay readers". We should not hide this standard way that cranial nerves are referred to, and it keeps consistency with spinal nerves. Lesion (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
That brings up a good point, and I would be for something along the lines of:

the nerve is question is a branch of the vagus - X

or

the nerve is question is a branch of the vagus, (cranial nerve - X)

That I find quite informative and still consise enough for an encylcopedia.
What I'm against it the long and tedious phrasing at the top such as:

it is innervated by Y, a branch of the oculomotor nerve (cranial nerve III)

CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, some very reasonable points for keeping this formatting.LT910001 (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

New neuroanatomy atlas (1960)

I've uploaded a new atlas to the commons, and a few of the images are very good.
Currently the page covering the images is not complete, although there is a link to the source where captions can be found, and a table of contents displating the different chapters. It is avaible here: User:CFCF/Lawrence
To get an idea of what images there are, it may for now be best to use: commons:Category:Lawrence neuroanatomy
The atlas in question is A functional approach to neuroanatomy, and has lapsed into the public domain.
It offers a simplistic approach, and has a number of images and diagrams which can explain complex topics in a simple manner. --CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  • There is one of hypoglossal nerve weakness (I think), which made makes me suggest that if many of these images have clinical relevance, might be an idea to cross post on WTMED so editors will see them and start to incorporate them into articles. Lesion (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Some more stellar work, CFCF. I like the way this set of images presents symptoms, although I would prefer to use colour images where possible. LT910001 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy/Archive_4&oldid=1256970193"