Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 12

Active discussions
Archive 5 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Urination pages

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Urination pages. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Jelqing, increasing penile size

Yup, we just got an article for that: Jelqing. Not sure if it is a myth/urban legend. Besing said that, i am not sure if it deserves an article on enwiki. Would somebody please take a look at it? Thanks, —usernamekiran(talk) 10:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: I have started same discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Jelqing, increasing penile size. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This has been now taken care of by user:Doc James. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Vagina article: Placement of physiology material, and sourcing

Opinions are needed at Talk:Vagina#Added physiology section. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not a section titled "Physiology" is needed in light of what WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy states about choosing section titles and when existing sections already cover physiology. Basically, the discussion is about whether a new section is needed or whether the material adequately fits in existing sections. The discussion is also about sourcing for anatomy articles, an aspect that was addressed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-03/WikiProject report. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Commented. Happy to provide a second opinion if needed if there is a specific question at hand. Article in general is looking very good. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Tom (LT). As you can see here and here, an editor is questioning the quality of the sourcing. I'm not seeing any issue with the sourcing and have explained why, although (as noted on the talk page), I do sometimes trade out older sources for newer sources. It's not like sources from the 80s and/or 90s are being used for the biological and medical content. The sources are generally from the late 2000s and 2010s and are WP:MEDRS-compliant when it comes to the biological and medical stuff. Historical/social stuff is obviously exempt (usually), per the WP:MEDDATE section of WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Pelvic floor vs Pelvic diaphragm

Hello, per this request on Wikidata I opened this section. The Pelvic floor article introduction said "The pelvic floor or pelvic diaphragm", but as I clarified on Wikidata request that Anatomy textbooks mentioned some differences. So what is your opinion? and can we fix the article? and make another article for Pelvic diaphragm? or move it? or....? --Alaa :)..! 16:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

From the article:

Some sources do not consider "pelvic floor" and "pelvic diaphragm" to be identical, with the "diaphragm" consisting of only the levator ani and coccygeus, while the "floor" also includes the perineal membrane and deep perineal pouch.[2] However, other sources include the fascia as part of the diaphragm.[citation needed] In practice, the two terms are often used interchangeably.

I do not think there is need for an extra article. You could provide more sources for this information, put it in a subsection of 'structure', or include it in the lead. In my experience it is actually less confusing to have things like this in the same article than to have two articles with a huge amount of overlap (which would include overlapping function, parts of structure, development, and clinical significance sub/sections). --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tom (LT): I agree with you in this point. What is your opinion about this request? (two items)? --Alaa :)..! 16:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The Pelvic Floor and the Pelvic Diaphragm can't be synonyms, because the former includes the pelvic diaphragm (lat. diaphragma pelvis) and urogenital diaphragm (lat. diaphragma urogenitale). In the Ukrainian Wikipedia I thought that it is more advisable to create the separate articles. --В.Галушко (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@В.Галушко although they are not synonyms, here we have often grouped together logically similar or related structures in the same article, I think this makes it easier for readers to understand how things are different - particularly the case here where there's some variation in what each structure consists of, but agreement both are mainly muscular and at the floor of the pelvis. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tom (LT) if you won't create the separate article of the pelvic diaphragm, I would like you to give a detailed explanation regarding these terms in the article The Pelvic Floor. Respectfully yours --Uncle Ben (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


Embryogenesis – would this page name be better as (MeSH entries) Embryonic development; likewise Human embryogensis to Human embryonic development? Also can see little benefit in having the page Prenatal development which duplicates a lot of material on Human embryogenesis. Would it be better to change this to Fetal development which would also give clearer linkings. Fetal development also has a MeSH entry. --Iztwoz (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been flummoxed though about what to do with article about development in utero for some time. Most (but not all) sources consider embryonic development from weeks 2 - 8 after fertilisation, and then fetal development from week 8 to term. Lots of sources cover them distinctly as we do, because most of the interesting action happens in embryonic development, whereas fetal development is more a process of growth in size. If we were to have a joined article, I guess the most accurate title would be "Human development before birth" (which I think sounds reasonable) but that definitely doesn't have our WP 'twang' about it. I guess the current separation is reflective of what I've seen covered in embryonic development books, but not necessarily the easiest to read. What do you think Iztwoz?--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Tom and merry holidays! I do think that each topic needs its own page. And entry names could follow MeSH entry terms. Embryonic development or Embryo development (31 million hits) and Fetal development (63 million hits). Seems that there is more relevance in the fetal development pages to the general reader. The embryo material on the Prenatal development page could easily merge or redirect to Human embryogenesis page and there is left a substantial amount of material on the sections following Fetal development. And there is a lot of information that could be added to Fetal development - it's not just a question of increasing size: at different stages bone develops from cartilage; eyebrows and eyelids form; fingerprints form; parts of brain develop further; actions such as thumb sucking starts as does swallowing; lungs develop more; genitalia develop; lanugo hair forms; taste buds develop, and so on.
Also think that material from Embryogenesis and Human embryogenesis could be merged. Would also ask you to consider page names such as Development of nervous sytem etc to be kept as embryological systems and separate out pages such as Development of cerebral cortex to Cerebral cortex development as other pages such as Eye development and Heart development. Best--Iztwoz (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Good point. To clarify I mean my above as illustrations why we need separate articles. Agree with above:
I think that:
  • "Development of... system" articles should remain and cover development of that system and parts of in general form, spanning from fertilisation and throughout human life of that system. I think this is logical, and also helpful for readers
  • Development of x" organ should exist when there's enough content to split from the parent article
  • Embryogenesis and human embryogenesis should remain one of our rare human / animal separate articles, as embryogenesis is often quite broad and discussed in terms of other mammals or animals
I want to ask about this:
  • What do do with Prenatal development? (I think just a rename is all that's needed if at all), this is a notable topic that does needs its own article
Also - merry holidays to you too! --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the page could just redirect to Fetal development which could have a see also Human embryonic development hatnote. It could be outlined and bolded on both pages as otherwise it will be just a duplication of all the material.--Iztwoz (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

A past discussion (here)

Overview of the way things are organised:

Organisation of general development articles

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Please note that Scalp, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Orangelioncat and penile articles

Like I noted at WP:Med, Orangelioncat (talk · contribs) is a new account. Some here might want to review Orangelioncat's edits to penile articles. Looking at images and sources he's used, there appears to be a WP:Conflict of interest aspect to the editing. I've already welcomed Orangelioncat with a WP:Med template. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC) ‎

Thanks, I have made a disclosure statement on my anatomy edit. The knowledge came from a recently published encyclopedia, and the rights of the images were released under the CC license. I am quite new to Wiki, and I am also working on some marine animal and Mandarin literacy projects. Orangelioncat (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I noted on my talk page that, as we know, newer research can conflict with older research. It can also be incorrect. So this is where WP:Due weight comes in. In cases where the anatomical research is in conflict or is inconsistent, we report both or all sides...unless the other side or one of the sides is too much of a minority view to mention. For example, we give different reports on the urogenital diaphragm in the Urogenital diaphragm article because the literature is not consistent on it. We mention the dispute regarding the limbic system in the Limbic system article. For penile articles, I am concerned that you will prioritize Geng Long Hsu's and his colleagues' work over what the literature generally states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Nasal septum deviation

  Note: Nasal_septum_deviation#Diagnosis.--Hildeoc (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Article "Heart_development", section "Endocardial tubes" reader's note 18 Feb, 2019

Anatomy team,

I am a general reader and landed on this Talk page looking for a way to send an editorial note to the the team curating If there is a mechanism to send a note without intruding on this Talk page, well, I've missed it. Regards section "Endocardial tubes":

This article section broadly seems intended as a chronology which then sets reader expectations on how the content will be organized and grouped in reading order, and, for embroyology, how the dependencies flow. My editorial note is that the current section content reads as if paragraph three was the original overview chronolgy content then one or more super fans of splanchnopleuric mesenchyme tacked two un-coordianted notes above the original overview paragraph. Consider the first sentence of Para 3: "At around 18 to 19 days after fertilisation, the heart begins to form." Great opening sentence - short, punchy, to the point. Yet it leads Para 3, not Para 1. So the section reads as if the section content is re-booting at Para 3 and forget about that splanch blah blah mumbling of Paras 1 & 2. Further, Paras 1 & 2, while each containing unique information, reads as redundantly talking about splanchnopleuric mesenchyme, neural plate and endocardial tubes.

IFF this section is intended as a multi-step chronology, or at least a sequence, then I suggest a re-write as:

At around 18 to 19 days after fertilisation, the heart begins to form. [keep this strong opener!]

Days 18-19 {stuff that happens}

Days 19-xx {stuff that happens}

Days xx-xx {stuff that happens}

Days 21-22 {stuff that finishes up and the pump starts}

Days 22-xx {existing content (last sentences of Para 3) about what happens after the pump starts. However, does some of this duplicate section "Heart folding" content?}

The above is really about prompting the writer to clearer, chrono-centric organization of the content, not necessarily those literal sub-heads.

Regards making dependencies clear, for example, does pump start depend on endocardial tube fusion completing or not? Maybe that is an unknown. Can't really tell from the existing article content.


FLIP1970 (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, FLIP1970. Unfortunately we don't have that many anatomy editors to attend to your feedback right now. On the other hand, it seems like you have a good idea about what needs to be do so... how about attempting it yourself! (Wikipedia is made up of volunteers after all!) You have an account and I'd love to lend a hand if you give it a go. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hurray! Thanks Audiodude. It's been out of date for some time. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Should anatomical organs have hatnotes that redirect to medications?

I invite comment here: Talk:Thyroid#Hatnote. [1]. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Front hole article

Just letting editors here know that Front hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) exists. Discussion about the article has taken place on its talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks have commented. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Grant endorsement

I have been accepted to host a Wikipedia workshop at IFAA2019 conference in London this August. The workshop will also include my research work which addresses the quality of anatomy articles on the English Wikipedia. Please visit my grant request for more information, and don't forget to endorse my request. Thank you in advance. --Athikhun.suw (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Please note that Organ (anatomy), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Appropriateness of articles

I'm working through the list of unsourced articles and there are some that I have questions about:

  1. Skin gland - Does anyone know what specifically this is referring to?
  2. List of veins of the human body - Is this a worthwhile article to develop? The navbox at the bottom of the page seems to have it covered.
  3. Deltoid fascia - Do we need to have an article on the fascia of every structure?

Thanks for any input. Natureium (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Great question, Natureium! I'm in complete agreement. My personal view is that we don't need fascia for each structure, could be directed to Deltoid muscle with a sentence like "... which is surrounded by a layer of fascia."
    • List of veins - an ancient hangover from a past set of transformed and collated articles. I agree with you it doesn't have much purpose, it just completes the set. What do you think about either deleting the article or maybe just replacing the text with expanded navboxes? (or leave it alone, it may be expanded eventually and does complete the set in the sidebar)
    • Skin glands - could be redirected to Skin appendage#Glands which, in turn, could surely be renamed something easier to understand. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Natureium (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Human body proposed for deletion

I only learned about this portal recently, when I did a quick once over to tidy it up somewhat. Deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human body.

Please contribute your thoughts. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks, Tom. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Suitability of dissection photos

Coming from the Plantar fascia page which has a photo showing a foot being dissected. I can't argue that it isn't a helpful image, and yet, I found its inclusion more disturbing than enlightening. By contrast, University uses an illustration for their unit on foot dissection which conveys information without triggering the visceral response of a photo.

Apparently there was discussion on how to handle graphic imagery on wikipedia over a decade ago, that ultimately seemed to have stalled out. But I would like to recommend against including photographs of dissections. rubah (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I do agree with you that these images are overused, Rubah, and in the most part unhelpful, so myself and another editor have been gradually removing the less useful ones over time. As a website we are WP:NOTCENSORED and we would not remove the images just because they are confronting, nor do we remove images of the naked human body or its component parts. What disturbs me more is that there is no indication on these images that the people who donated their bodies to the anatomist who uploaded their images (or the parents of the foetal images) consented to this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:Offensive material, we shouldn't include offensive images or potentially offensive images just to include them. They should actually enhance readers' understanding of the topic. I think that the images in the Plantar fascia article do that. That stated, WP:Offensive material notes that a less offensive, equally suitable alternative should be used when available. If we had drawings or computerized imagery that displayed what the real-life dissection images do (meaning with just as much detail and accuracy), using them instead might help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Defining/relaying the concept of "woman" at the Woman article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Woman#Proposed edits to lede. A permalink for it is here. The topic concerns this project due to the biological/anatomical aspects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks Flyer22. Quite a lot of activity on the article so I will refrain from editing. I'm surprised that such a fundamental and broad topic has such a tiny lead. Maybe when things die down a bit we can work on it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Tom and others, a related RfC has commenced: Talk:Woman#RfC: Article lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Differences of sexual development at WP:Redirects for discussion

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Differences of sexual development. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Article alerts update

Article alerts now includes merges and articles for creation, which makes these areas much easier to track. Hurray! --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Please note that Organ (anatomy), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Vulva file up for deletion at Commons

I just saw this, which is about File:Vulva collage 12.jpg. See the nomination page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Help defining Epicanthic fold

I've expanded Eyelid with a section on ethnic variation (the "Asian upper eyelid" according to the study title), since it didn't mention epicanthic folds at all before. However, the Epicanthic fold article has left me, many of its editors, and possibly the general population confused on what it actually is for over a decade. Terms like monolid (and previously "Asian eyes") redirect there. Any images outside of the infobox that would've helped have been added and replaced constantly due to no one agreeing on what it is.

After looking into this it appears to me that whether one has "single" or "double" or "Caucasian" eyelids is not intrinsically linked to having or not having an epicanthic fold, and I've kept them separate in the section I added.

I would appreciate any help from people knowing eyelid terminology to make the Epicanthic fold article easier for non-technical people to understand. 93 (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I added an image to Eyelid#Variations in structure and captioned it with my understanding of the differences, as well as adding explanations to the leads of Eyelid and Epicanthic fold. 93 (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Please note that Organ (anatomy), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Mons pubis vs. mons veneris

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Vulva#Mons pubis vs. mons veneris. A pemalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Vulva and Labia lead images: gallery or single image?

Opinions are needed at the following: Talk:Labia#New_lead_image Talk:Vulva#Proposed lead image
Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Image of anorectal junction histology?

Hi all,

Just wondering if anyone had access or could upload an image of the anorectal junction histology? Was editing rectum and I think it would be quite useful for readers to see the transition between the epithelia of the two regions. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a great video with an explanation here, but I have not been editing long enough to know how Wikipedia feels about links to YouTube. I follow the creator of the video on Twitter and could ask him to contribute a still image. UWM.AP.Endo (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@UWM.AP.Endo that is a great video! very easy to understand. Would you mind asking him? --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

TA2 will be released

Terminologia Anatomica second edition (TA2) will be released this August. Thank you user:Mwhalle for letteing me know this at my talk page. Then I proposed new property for TA2 at Wikidata (d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/TA2_ID). Please take a look. Thank you. --Was a bee (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

How exciting! Should we replace the main infobox TA reference and move all the TA98 numbers to authority control templates? (Which most articles already include) --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I have an official viewer for TA2: . I created a similar version for TA which uses the Wikidata TA property to show Wikipedia images and links to other resources described by other properties. I also use the international translations in Wikidata to provide reverse lookup back to TA, so you can search using many different languages. See: . I am excited to expand this resource to use TA2 and make Wikipedia anatomy resources even easier to find! --Mwhalle (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
At Wikidata, TA2 property is created (wikidata:Property talk:P7173).
Tom (LT) Oh, you are looking at the future! Yes, that is nice change. After implementing TA2 at Wikidata, current TA would be better to be put at authority control template. Currently registered TA2 ID is only 6 out of 7,113.
User:Mwhalle Yes, this is very fascinating. By the way, you posted at my talk page that "We have direct contact with the TA2 editor. If you would like to communicate with him, please let me know." About this, I wonder can I get Excel sheet about TA and TA2 correspondence, if such table exists. For example, like this..
Name TA TA2
tibia A02.5.06.001 1397
heart A12.1.00.001 3932
If I can get such Excel table, it makes me very easier to update Wikidata through the tool like wikidata:Help:QuickStatements. If such table is not available, I'll update manually! --Was a bee (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the mapping doesn't (yet) exist. I'm doing it as much as I can automatically (about 3.9K match) but there are about 4.9K that don't match exactly and require some intervention. I will keep you posted. Mwhalle (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mwhalle: Oh, that's cool. Even if list is partial, it helps a lot. It saves a lot of effort and makes the process more more faster. If it is OK to share data, could you upload that to somewhere? or I have e-mail adress ( wiki.was.a.bee at ) :) FYI, the property for TA2 ID (wikidata:Property:P7173) was created one month ago. And I've started adding IDs. Currently about 600 IDs are manually registered (Wikidata query result). --Was a bee (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you I recieved Excel file through e-mail. I added data at Wikidata. Now TA2 has 2,625 IDs (wikidata:Property talk:P7173). Now it covers 70% of TA98 ID (wikidata:Property talk:P1323). Then what about...
  1. Adding TA2 section to the infobox. (and Moving TA98 into authority control box?)
  2. Changing link target of TA98 to It can shows the tree, and English headings. For example, Heart at the old site[2] and new site[3]
@Tom (LT):, @Mwhalle: --Was a bee (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Lymph nodes in the abdomen - group and rearrange by vessel?

Hi all! I have been editing at prostate and stumbled upon our horrible and confusing lot of lymph node articles. Have a look at some and you'll see what I mean (see, eg. external iliac lymph nodes) - the fragmentation makes it hard to understand and edit, the images are also not very nice. Currently we have:

I feel this produces quite a difficult set of articles to navigate and understand. What would be your thoughts about upmerging the smaller articles into their parents, producing a set of four articles instead?

Proposed arrangement

I think this would produce some articles that are much easier to navigate and understand. Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


Page name

Is there a reason why the development of the urinary system which includes reproductive and urinary is not named development of the genitourinary system? --Iztwoz (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi Iztwoz, yes 'twas I that renamed it. Although the genital and urinary systems share a common phase of development, I found it very confusing when editing and reading those articles and so boldly split them. Yes, they do have some shared parts of development at the beginning, but the latter portion of development is separate and I think it is easier for readers to have them separate, as most readers will be approaching the issue from the point of view of the system (genital or urinary). --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! --Iztwoz (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments on navbox organisation

Hi all, I'm not greatly enthusiastic about the way our navboxes are currently arranged. They do a good job if I want to trace a blood vessel or nerve from origin to destination, but in my mind we are missing a set of navboxes relating to structures - eg things like the hand, elbow, shoulder etc. In my mind I would much rather be able to easily navigate to things that relate to these gross structures than to have a list of, eg., all joints or ligaments in the arm. On the other hand, most of this information is provided in parent articles and the infoboxes so a new set of navboxes may just contribute clutter, duplicate other ways of finding information, and not be useful at all. What are others thoughts on this? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Virtual dissecting table

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#You'll_all_want_one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Have seen this used myself. A far cry from the days of anatomy riots and body snatching. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Can I add this YT video as a source for Iris dilator muscle?

--Irony of prudent premise (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Have had a look. Is there audio? (I don't get any when I view, and I do from the ads beforehand). I'm reserved about this one. It seems to be just a slideshow with poor quality images and no audio, so I do not think it would add that much to the article. It's definitely not a reliable source. Happy to hear what others think though. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Unusual amount of constructive editing

Every so often I feel it's worth celebrating something positive. I often keep an eye on the change log. Sometimes it's very disappointing - lots and lots of either vandalism or bot edits or clustered edits to reference formatting. This week is one of those rare weeks where there's been a fairly high proportion of constructive edits, made by lots of editors (old and new) and in what appears to be in good faith. I thought this might be worth sharing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Question about redirects

Would it be useful with redirects from these?

Utfor (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think some of them are useful as redirects or when searching. I've gone ahead and created redirects for the ones I think are useful:

PS @Utfor what made you think to ask this? Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The Anatomist Barnstar

Introducing Template:The Anatomist Barnstar. Jerm (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jerm that's brilliant! Also a pleasure that you thought this was a gap that needed to be filled. Until now we've only had this barnstar:
  The Golden Galen barnstar
You have been awarded the prestigious Golden Galen barnstar for your contributions to Wikipedia's anatomy articles. Thank you for your contributions and well done!

I'll add yours to our main page :).--Tom (LT) (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


Some great high quality images have been added by Manu5 recently with thanks (although the captions could be slightly tweaked) - just wondering what the thoughts are about use beyond just the parent articles? Quality, resolution, simplicity and labelling are all great --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, these are beautiful. I categorized some images which were not yet categorized at Commons. If Manu5 make images which has text in SVG format (for example by using Inkscape), I suppose such images can get more wider attentions. Because SVG format is friendly to translation. --Was a bee (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Skene's gland article -- which title/name to use?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Skene's gland#Why is Wikipedia calling this the "Skene's gland" when the proper name is "female prostate". A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Follicular cell

Hi guys, I've been thinking about this one for a while. As far as I know, there are 4 types of cells in the body commonly referred to as "follicular cell". But here on WP, there is one of them, which isn't even the most common (the thyroid one), taking the base title "follicular cell". So I've written Follicular cell (disambiguation), and I want to propose moving it to the base title Follicular cell, previously moving the thyroid one to a more specific name. Would there be consensus for this? Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Great idea - strong support. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • support --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Question Hi guys, thanks for the support. So if we do these moves, what specific title do you reckon we should move the thyroid one to and why? The literature seems to be split between "thyrocyte" and "thyroid epithelial cell". Thyrocyte is nice because it's shorter, and thyroid epithelial cell is nice because it's much more specific. How would you go about deciding? Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I would favour thyroid epithelial cell because it is a clear description of what the cell is, doesn't require readers to learn a new portmanteau. Also, to the reader who doesn't know, thyrocyte is kind of ambiguous as they may assume it could refer to any thyroid cell. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree, that's the best rationale we have. If nobody expresses any views to the contrary over the next couple of days, I'll request the moves. Unless somebody watching this has the powers and is feeling so inclined? :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Artery of round ligament of uterus

As far as I know, the round ligament artery and Sampson [sic] artery describe the same artery. They should probably be merged, and the redirect should be from Sampson's artery (possessive). I wanted to notify the project before merging, for others to confirm. Modeum (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Support merge I'm struggling with these in Gray's and even in Moore's, but I've found 2 reasonably reliable sources that support the fact that these 2 arteries are the same: this and this. So I support the merge. But the title for the merged article needs discussion. I would personally go for Sampson's artery on the grounds that out of the other 2 names, one is too wordy and the other one is not proper English. Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge agree that these appear to be the same. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
any thoughts on what title you'd choose for the merged article? Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  Comment: Thank you both for your feedback. I suggest that it be moved to either round ligament artery, which appears frequently in literature, or to the longer, but slightly more descriptive artery of round ligament of uterus (the name used in TA2). The longer variant of the latter would be one with the two definite articles included, namely artery of the round ligament of the uterus, which I do not recommend (other than as a redirect). I suggest including Sampson's artery only as a synonym, since textbooks today generally discourage the use of eponyms. Modeum (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Damn it, I love eponyms. In fact I secretly wish humans mutate soon enough that one day I can name the "plexus of Vogel". Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I've had a look in the literature, and yes it seems that the non-eponymic names are a bit more common. Personally I think "round ligament artery" is not great because of the round ligament in the liver. And the version with the 2 definite articles is nicer to the ear but it's too long. If we can't have the eponym, that leaves us with only "artery of round ligament of uterus". Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  Done Dr. Vogel (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks good, I think the new name has a good ring to it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


Hi guys, I'm looking at the trabecula article, which is mainly about the trabeculae in bone, and I can't help thinking that there are several other structures in the body also called trabeculae, such as in the kidney, the penis and the head, to name some. Would there be consensus in the community to move that article to something like trabecula (bones) and then in the base title have a relatively short article about what trabeculae are, and then link from that article to all the articles that discuss trabeculae in other parts of the body? Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Agree - seems reasonable to have trabecular as a disambiguation / index page, and then move to trabecula (bone) for the current content. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll leave the discussion to run for a few days, and if there's no opposition, I'll get to work on the new article. I wasn't thinking along the lines of a disambiguation page, I was thinking more along the lines of explaining what trabeculae are, why they exist and why they're like that, and then links to articles talking about specific instances of trabeculae in the body.
Another question would be, do we go for "trabecula" or "trabeculae"? I know all the cell articles for example have singular titles. But I've always assumed that that's because you could always have just 1 cell. But you'd never isolate 1 trabecula, which is why I'd be inclined for the article to be "trabeculae" instead of "trabecula".
And a third question would be about where to move the current article to. Because, if we move it to "trabeculae (bone)", it may give the impression that it's the name of a specific bone, as opposed to a component of many different bones.
Sorry about all the questions, I just want to get this right! Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
From memory, we have do have some similar articles to what you suggest in other areas - such as Plexus or Fenestra, which explain what the thing is and then link to some notable ones (there is a better example lying around but I just can't remember it :( ); so that would be consistent with your plan. As to the name of the bone article, would Trabeculae of bone be less ambiguous? I feel trabeculae are usually referred to in plural when referring to bone hence my choice of the plural but would be interested in your opinion. The overall general parent article should probably be Trabecula --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Any more opinions from anyone before we get to work on this? Dr. Vogel (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


Hi guys. This article, which I think is of extreme importance, had 15 instances of the "citation needed" template. I've sat down with 3 basic books and provided citations for all of them, correcting the claims when they disagreed with the sources. How else do you reckon we can improve this key article? Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Having looked at this page in the past it seems that the lead is far more detailed than some of the sections - perhaps the lead could be trimmed with finer detail added to relevant sections.--Iztwoz (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Vasa recta

Hi guys. I've turned the redirect at vasa recta into a dab page, as there is more than one vessel with that name. There are 2 different ones, possibly 3. I feel that it would be a good idea to move Straight arterioles of kidney to Vasa recta (kidney), because that title would achieve 3 things:

  • remove the word "arterioles" from the title, as the renal vasa recta are capillaries, not arterioles
If they are capillaries why are they named arterioles in TA and FMA ? (not being contentious) --Iztwoz (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • use the name that is overwhelmingly more common in the literature and in clinical practice
  • make it consistent with Vasa recta (intestines)

How do you guys feel about this? Dr. Vogel (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That seems like the most consistent (and technically correct - an anatomist's favorite type of correct) way to do things. Keilana (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Support the proposal to move the page to Vasa recta (kidney), on the grounds that that is the more commonly used name; for example, it is the name used in the Physiology and Renal Physiology textbooks used in the UK. We could go even further and just move to Vasa recta, claiming this to be the primary topic, then having a DAB hatnote to Vasa recta (intestines).Klbrain (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
support per Klbrain--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom's rationale --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment: left a notification on Talk:Straight arterioles of kidney about this discussion. Also checked the move log, which shows Iztwoz moved Vasa recta to Straight arterioles of kidney five years ago with the reason English synonym consistency with straight venules. No opinion on this matter so far, but thought you'd find this useful. Stay well, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Seems like five years ago there was more of a general move to use simpler terms such as the TA use of English synonyms. Of course the more usual name in textbooks would be the Latin but the textbooks are written for medical students and Wikipedia is written for the general reader. Also straight arterioles is very much in line with straight venules of kidney - is there going to be a move to change this too? The use of the synonym also does away with the need of a disambiguation page. Can there be some clear guideline here since the goalposts seem to be shifting.?--Iztwoz (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I think those 2 articles should be 1 article, because they're just the arterial and venous parts of the same capillary. We don't have separate articles about the arterial and venous parts of the same capillary. Dr. Vogel (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Support: have read up in Gray's and vasa recta refers to the two types - descending arterioles and ascending venules (to and from the capillary network).--Iztwoz (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: ‎Question about redirects

I found the terms in Corbeil, Jean-Claude; Archambault, Ariane (2013). Mini norsk-engelsk visuell ordbok (Mini Norwegian-English Visual Dictionary). Kunnskapsforlaget.

Which are the correct singulars? (Found in Quick Study Muscular System)

Would it be useful with redirects from any of these?

Would it be useful with a redirect from e.g. Extensor hallucis longus tendon to Extensor hallucis longus and from similar titles to titles without "tendon"? Utfor (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Utfor. Thanks for reposting and notifying me. No harm in creating redirects if you think they are useful; if you'd like to you can redirect to Dorsal interossei of the hand and Palmar interossei muscles. Cheers. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Tom (LT): To be honest, I'm not an expert in anatomy, and I don't like to create redirects with spelling errors. I don't know whether the correct spelling is interosseus or interosseous. I guess that one or both of dorsal interosseus and dorsal interosseous should point to dorsal interossei (dab page) instead of Dorsal interossei of the hand, but I'm not sure. Utfor (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
On second thought, they are at least plausible typos. I will create the redirects now. Utfor (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Are these appropriate redirects? If so, what targets should the last two have? Utfor (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Please note that Human body, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Red links on human heart

Hi all, is there somewhere a list of red links relevant to the human heart or aorta? Please ping. Cinadon36 08:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I've just had a look at both articles, and there don't seem to be any red links in any of them. What sort of thing are you looking for? What are you interested in? Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

eye anatomy

hi guys, I am new to this page. I was focusing in eye only. mainly translating eye related articles to regional language Malayalam. now my eye anatomy contribution to Malayalam wiki is 58 articles (total ophthalmology/optometry articles translated is 93.) I am also interested in improving eye anatomy related articled in English also. Done some contributions to English articles already. since I am focusing only in Eye, Let me know whether I can join this Project or not. Ajeeshkumar4u (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Ajeeshkumar4u, you're very welcome to join us! We're all volunteers like yourself and this WP is just a place for some common discussion, so anyone who's interested is welcome to join :). Let us know if there's anything we can do to help you out with your editing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge of Sensory neuron and Afferent nerve fiber

This interesting proposal is made here: Talk:Sensory_neuron#Merger_Proposal_2. Please have a look and comment if you have an opinion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and "also known as"

Most anatomical structures have received various names through the course of time. Often, they are labelled according to their Greek and then latin names, then translated into English or "rediscovered" during the reconnaissance, for a few generations and sporadically thereafter referred to eponymously by the name of that person, then in the interests of ease of use and returning to roots the eponyms are removed. This is my uncited perspective.

I want to ask what other editors think about moving some of the eponyms away from the introductory sentences? These sentences are very important because they are (1) the only thing readers may want to view, and (2) often reposted throughout the internet. Sometimes there is a thousand or million-fold difference in the use of an eponym vs. not and I think including them in the lead provides WP:UNDUE attention. I wonder if they are better described in the 'history' or 'society and culture' subsections.

Eg "Andersch nerve" [4], "Arantius ligament" [5]

What prompted me to ask this is a series of what I think are good faith insertions of rare eponyms by Dominikbilicki. What do other editors think about moving these out of the introductory sentence? If there is some consensus I will make a more formal suggestion to WP:MEDMOS relating to these sort of things in the lead. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

If the eponym is well-known, I think it should stay in the lead per WP:Alternative title. For example, at the Paramesonephric duct article, we should continue to state "(or Müllerian ducts)." Years ago, I debated the article having been moved to the "Paramesonephric duct" title. And I'm still not convinced it should be at that title as opposed to being at "Müllerian duct." Also per WP:Alternative title, "If there are three or more alternative names – including alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, and significant names in other languages – or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
My personal feeling on this matter is that all common names for the structure in question, eponyms and otherwise, should be in bold in the first sentence of the lead. For any other names that may exist, and provided that they are used in multiple secondary sources that are independent of the proponents, I feel that they should be mentioned somewhere in the article. I would not include any names that are too obscure to appear on multiple independent secondary sources. Personally, I want Wikipedia to include as much useful information as possible, but not at the cost of turning it into a promotion mechanism. Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
These additions referred to are obscure and of no possible interest to a general reader.--Iztwoz (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Dominikbilicki should stop adding these obscure terms to the lead. If they are not going to respond here and just keep on with what they are doing, we should mass revert them and report them for disruption. By all means, try to get Dominikbilicki to be responsive to our concerns. But if they continue to ignore them? Report for disruption. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Flyer, I saw your alert to the editor and have added mine. By 'mass revert' do you mean manually reverting each edit? --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I've just deleted all changes I introduced. I wanted to provide the sources of the information I added but as you suggested eponyms might be "obscure" or "unfriendly" for the reader. I hope that potential reader will find such information (for example to honour the scientist who discovered these structures or simple to have access to as much information as possible) in different websites or in books. Ciao. Dominikbilicki (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Dominikbilicki, I share your view that it's good for articles to contain as much information as possible. But there comes a point when information may become noise. If a name is not supported as common by the relevant literature, it's not our job to make it famous, as we'd be doing the reader a disservice. Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that the lead part of a Wikipedia article is not the best place to list names that aren't in use anymore. @Dominikbilicki: if you want to record those names, I think Wikidata is a great place. With "named after"/"applies to name" it's also possible to add information about whom an anatomical structure is named after. ChristianKl❫ 14:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Anatomical terms of location nominated for good article

Hi all, hope that you are well!

I've nominated Anatomical terms of location for good article status. It's a very important article for us as a project. It's our 61st most viewed article (WP:ANAT500) and receives about 45,000 views monthly and, if done well, it has the potential to be very useful to readers. It's linked in many articles and in the infoboxes of some articles.

I would really appreciate fresh sets of eyes to have a look, make some corrections or post on the talk page of the article as to how it could be improved to get to GA status. I've been editing since 2014 so I am having that feeling that I know there are issues, but it is very hard to identify them as I've viewed / edited it so many times. If people aren't aware, articles for GA are reviewed against six criteria (WP:GACR). One thing I am very keen on is making sure it is as understandable to lay readers as possible (WP:ANATSIMPLIFY), so I am trying very hard not to make it excessively technical or complicated. Ping to Ajpolino who has provided some really useful feedback recently on some other good article reviews. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Physical differences between boys and girls before puberty

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Puberty#Prepubertal differences in sexes. A permalink for it is here. Right now, the content being discussed is the "only major difference in physical appearance between prepubescent boys and girls are the external sex organs" wording. I'll also alert WP:Med to the discussion for wider input. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Some changes to MEDMOS

Hi all, I have made some small changes to the manual of style for anatomy articles (WP:MEDMOS), mostly to just update it against what happens in practice. Discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Some_anatomy_edits. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


Hi all, I was doing some housecleaning and realise some time ago I created a series of sideboxes to make navigating between some of our articles easier - particularly subjects where there is a logical physical flow (eg gastrointestinal tract, respiratory tract) and it might be easier for lay readers to have a small sidebox of the main parts in that thing, as compared with our overflowing navboxes. I was worried though at the time that these might just clutter the article space and not be useful, so because of this doubt haven't deployed them other than around ear and epithelium.

I'd like to ask what other editors think about this? Would it be useful for me to put these in article space? --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, these are very useful. 3 reasons come to mind immediately:
  • they make navigation easier
  • the intrinsic sorting of many links into boxes and then listing items that belong in the same subset is useful as well. You're telling me (fairly exhaustively) what boxes exist, and then you're telling me (fairly exhaustively) what elements exist in that box. I find that useful too
  • they look good, and that is helpful too
Dr. Vogel (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Shall we try to make the annotations on the images clickable? There are templates that can be used. Aditya(talkcontribs) 13:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Only if the images that are clickable are the same quality. Most of the clickable images, in my opinion, are of lesser quality because they try and fit as much as they can into an image that has to be smaller and more complex, and so the reader loses the forest for the trees.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Updated Article assessment statistics

Greetings, For Anatomy WP, I added progression, pie graph, rainbow. JoeNMLC (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Popov's glands

In the book endoscopic surgery of the lacrimal drainage system (Springer isbn=978-3-319-20632-5), chapter "anatomy of the lacrimal drainage system" mentions a third type of accessory lacrimal gland.It is named as Popov's glands. But I failed to find the same in other eye anatomy/ophtalmology books (with me). Is it good to mention the gland in article accessory lacrimal glands with above mentioned book reference or wait for another source? Asked the same in article talk page also. Ajeeshkumar4u (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ajeeshkumar4u that sounds like a very good place to mention it, particularly when you have a reliable source to back it up. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Cleavage (breasts)

Parts of the article deal with a lot of anatomy. Not being very medically oriented I can't put those parts in order by myself. Seriously need some help. Aditya(talkcontribs) 13:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks I'll take a look in the next week or so. Have also posted on your talk page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I've done a bit of editing. I don't think it was that messy. Is there anything you feel doesn't make sense? Dr. Vogel (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I loved the edits. If anything more is needed I will definitely run to you guys again. Cheers. Aditya(talkcontribs) 10:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
That's what we like to hear!! --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Tom (LT): @DrVogel: the anatomical part remains in the Intermammary cleft article. The anatomy section in the cleavage article has been reduced a lot, while the cleft article has it expanded quite a bit. Can you take a look at both the articles sometime? Aditya(talkcontribs) 02:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Newsletter 7

Hi all, it's about time for a newsletter (more than two years since the last one in fact). My draft newsletter is here: User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/Anatomy newsletter 7. Please let me know if I've forgotten something. Also, I'd be interested in some reflections from editors active in this space on their experience editing in the topic area, whether that be notable experiences or tips for new editors, and I was thinking of including this as the feature piece. If you'd like, please drop your reflections on the talk page (User talk:Tom (LT)/sandbox/Anatomy newsletter 7), where I've already pinged a couple of editors. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS matter: Relaying information about crafting leads and terminology/technical language

We need opinions on the following Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Removing guidance about the lead, and adding a bit about terminology and technical language. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer. The discussion on etymology here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Proposal_to_remove_a_sentence_about_etymology_being_interesting is also highly relevant to anatomy articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Goal of 150 B-class articles achieved!

For our project's mid year Christmas in July gift, I present:

It is heartening to see the articles under our project's scope are gradually improving (this is copied from our main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy#Goals):

Article assessment over time
Month Good articles B-class articles C-class articles Start-class articles
December 2013
5(9,333 total)
June 2014
9(9,916 total)
December 2014
14(10,419 total)
May 2015
15(12,766 total)
December 2015
16(13,318 total)
May 2016
19(19,719 total)
October 2016
20(19,828 total)
July 2017
25(20,108 total)
January 2018
29(20,179 total)
June 2018
32(20,417 total)
1,611(2,298 stubs)
Dec 2019
33(20,608 total)
1,664(2,308 stubs)
August 2020
37(20,671 total)
1,666(2,289 stubs)

The doubling in total articles is mostly explained by an increase in redirects included within our project's scope

The class (stub, start, C, B) of most articles was fully reviewed a couple of years ago, and although the articles under our project's scope are gradually increasing, it is my feeling that most of the improvement that we've measured is due to actual improvement of articles - increase in size, referencing, etc. Well done to all!

Should we set an ambitious goal of, say, more than 250 B-class articles as our next goal? Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Merry christmas! Interesting graphs. Although there are massive numbers of terms in anatomy, I feel that this graph shows core concepts are not so many. Yes, I think the new goal is nice. --Was a bee (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Updated. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about moving the Gut flora article

Opinions are needed at Talk:Gut flora#Requested move 4 September 2020: Add "human" to the title?. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

TA2 and TE2

Terminologia Anatomica and Terminologia Embryologica, essential aids to our classification and titling of many articles, have received second editions released in August last year. At the time Was a bee had brought them to our attention (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy/Archive_12#TA2_will_be_released). Unfortunately the thread was left at this cliffhanger (my bad...):

Thank you I recieved Excel file through e-mail. I added data at Wikidata. Now TA2 has 2,625 IDs (wikidata:Property talk:P7173). Now it covers 70% of TA98 ID (wikidata:Property talk:P1323). Then what about...

  • Adding TA2 section to the infobox. (and Moving TA98 into authority control box?)
  • Changing link target of TA98 to It can shows the tree, and English headings. For example, Heart at the old site[6] and new site[7]

@Tom (LT):, @Mwhalle: --Was a bee (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Was a bee, could I ask whether by now all TA98 is matched to TA2, and if there's also been an update on Wikidata to corresponding TE2 entries? (and if we have terminologia neuroanatomica? [8])

If we have close to full corresponding entries, we can probably put TA2 and TE2 in the infoboxes and deprecate TA and TE to the authority controls; if however there's still a big mismatch we may need to add both the new and old terms to the infoboxes for consistency while the gaps are filled. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Current status of TA98 and TA2 IDs in Wikidata. Venn diagram
On TA2: TA2 is, I think, ready. These two (TA98 and TA2) are something like different editions of dictionary. Some entries were merged, some were split, some were added, and so on. So 100% match is not possible at the first place. But currently over 93% of IDs (≒4,200/4,500) are connected with each others. (See the image at the right, or the full TA98 list at Wikidata). As my current prediction, I think I can raise this matching-percentage up to around 95% or so, by my own edits in some weeks.
Thanks for your work! In this case, I will add TA2 to {{Infobox anatomy}} and we can display both TA2 and TA98 together for a while, so we can get a feel of how it's working, and as we get closer to 95-98% coverage we can deprecate TA98 to an authority control template. Question - is there a template such as {{TA2}} that links to the relevant TA2 entry? (like we have for {{TA98}}?) --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Update. TA2 entry is now displayed in the infobox, but currently I have no way of linking to its entry in the ontology (ping to Was a bee).--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@Tom (LT): Sorry for late response. Matching rate was raised up to 96%. Here is code for TA2 which uses {{wd}} for supports multiple IDs. (Currently about 100 pages have multiple IDs.)
| label50= [[Terminologia Anatomica|TA2]]
| data50 = {{#if:{{#property:P7173}} | {{wikidata|properties|P7173|format=\[ %p\][%s]}} }}
--Was a bee (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I have updated the infobox. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
On TE2, TNA: About these, nothing has been done.
--Was a bee (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Would it be difficult or possible to also add these to Wikidata? We can then update the relevant embryology and neuroanatomy articles.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Anatomy newsletter #7

Released September 2020  · Previous newsletter

Hello WikiProject Anatomy participant! This is our seventh newsletter, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest.

I value feedback, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talk page, or remove your name from the mailing list.

Yours truly, --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

What's new

  new good articles since last newsletter include Epiglottis, Human nose, Pancreas, Prostate, Thymus, Trachea, T tubule, Ureter and Vagina, with Anatomical terms of location also awaiting review
  A made-up eponymous term is used in our article that eventually makes it in to university anatomy teaching slides and a journal article
  We reach a project goal of 150 B-class articles in July 2020, increasing by about 50% over five years, and are one good article away from our goal of 40 GAs, doubling over the last five years
  In the real world, Terminologia Anatomica 2 and Terminologia Embryologica 2 are released ([9], [10]). Terminologia Anatomica 2 is now included in anatomy article infoboxes, and there is ongoing discussion about updating TE as well
  A beautiful new barnstar is released ({{subst:The Anatomist Barnstar}})
  Portal:Anatomy receives some attention, and two related portals are deleted (vale Human body and Cranial nerve portals)
  Some things left out from past newsletters - A large amount of redirects are created to help link plural structures, and Cerebellum ([11]) and Hippocampus ([12]) are published in Wikiversity.

Newsletter topic: anatomy and featured articles

I have been asked to write up something introducing the Featured article (FA) process to anatomy editors, but I took a more general approach to explaining why one might want to contribute featured content and the benefits to the editor and to Wikipedia. I also tried to address some misconceptions about the FA process, and give you a guide that is somewhat specific to health content should you decide to take the dive.

A vital purpose of Featured articles is to serve as examples for new and aspiring Wikipedia editors. FAs are often uniquely comprehensive for the Internet. They showcase some of our best articles, and can enhance Wikipedia's reputation if they are maintained to standard—but in an "anyone can edit" environment, they can easily fall out of standard if not maintained. Benefits to the writer include developing collaborative partnerships and learning new skills, while improving your writing and seeing it exposed to a broader audience—all that Wikipedia is about!

Looking more specifically at WP Anatomy's featured content, the Featured media is impressive and seems to be an Anatomy Project strength. The Anatomy WikiProject has tagged 4 FAs, 1 Featured list, and 30 Featured media. Working towards upgrading and maintaining older Featured articles could be a worthwhile goal. Immune system is a 2007 FA promotion, and bringing it up to date would make a nice collaboration between WikiProject Medicine and the Anatomy WikiProject. Hippocampus is another dated promotion that is almost 50% larger than when promoted, having taken on a bit of uncited text and new text that might benefit from a tune-up.

Whether tuning up an older FA at Featured article review, or attempting a new one to be reviewed at Featured article candidates, taking the plunge can be rewarding, and I hope the advice in my essay is helpful.

You can read the essay "Achieving excellence through featured content" here.

SandyGeorgia has been a regular FA reviewer at FAC and FAR since 2006, and has participated in thousands of nominations

How can I contribute?

  • Ask questions! Talk with other editors, collaborate - and if you need help, ask at our project page!
  • Continue to add content (and citations) to our articles
  • Collaborate and discuss with other editors - many hands make light work!
  • Find a space, task or type of article that you enjoy editing - there are lots of untended niches out there

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WikiProject Anatomy users. To opt-out, remove your name from the mailing list

Feel free to discuss below. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Student editors headed our way

Heads up -

Please add articles if more arise so we can keep an eye on them. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Tom and Ian (Wiki Ed), student editors really shouldn't be sent to edit WP:GA and WP:FA articles (unless those articles are clearly in bad shape). I requested that they don't before, and this request was granted. I requested that they not edit an article that I would likely soon be bringing to WP:GA status and noted controversial aspects of things, and I soon got a response in a section I started at WP:Med. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 125#A lot of student editing coming our way, where Helaine (Wiki Ed) states, "Students in the course will not be editing articles with discretionary tags, those that are in the process of being brought to Good or Featured Article status, or otherwise overly controversial. We usually support medical courses with no more than 35-40 students, but made an exception to this course due to our longstanding relationship with UCSF and its medical student Wikipedia editing initiatives. The course will overall be working on fewer articles as well, and of course we'll be helping them with their contributions. Thank you."
Although Helaine states "in the process of being brought to Good or Featured Article status", I don't think that the students touched GA and FA articles.
I don't see what improvements student editors can make to an article like the Human brain article, and it's big enough as I'm not keen on it being significantly expanded. We need to keep WP:SIZE in mind and create spin-off articles when necessary. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I reached out to the instructor to remind them that students should not be working on articles with a GA status. Also, note that this class will only be working in their sandboxes this term and not making any live edits. Thanks. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Helaine (Wiki Ed), I meant to state this earlier, but thank you for that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Helaine (Wiki Ed), as Flyer22 points out, the student edits template has been added to Human brain again, despite your above assurance.--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Flyer22 and Tom (LT) I'm reaching out to the instructor again to remind them that students should not be assigning themselves GA articles to work on. We removed the previous ones and will remove these as well. Again, this course will not be working in the article main space. Thanks for letting us know.Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again, Helaine (Wiki Ed). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Oviduct into Fallopian tube

See Talk:Fallopian tube#Proposed merge of Oviduct into Fallopian tube. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 12".