Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 6

Active discussions
Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 10

Discussion of popular articles

Now that we've got a list of the most popular articles, what to do with it?

At first blush, I think one goal might be to aim for no Stub-class articles on the list (I am happy to propose some 'soft' and achievable goals), and no Start or Stub - class for the top 100, but will spend some time thinking about some things we can do with this list, and would invite other editors to do the same. LT910001 (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think those are great goals, and quite achievable. Seeing the list gives me incentive to immediately get working on Cranial nerve which I was planning to engage in, seeing as I hadn't realized it was such a popular article.
Apart from that, is there any way to get sex-related articles off the list? Are articles marked with N/A importance included in the list, maybe thats an alternative? They are definitely included in the projects scope but they are so disproportionately popular, I think we should remove them from the top lists. Some of them on the other hand could do with quite a bit of work, as there is misinformation abound, but I feel they are too much of a time-sink to focus on for now.
Another goal which is achievable in the short run would be to get the top 20 to B, and eventually increasing that to the top 50.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It would depend on what you mean by "sex-related." The sex organs are sex-related and obviously belong on the list. I was definitely thinking of removing the Sexual intercourse article; that is already covered by WP:MED, and it's one of the few sex-related articles that WP:MED is fine with being tagged within WP:MED's scope. There are not a lot of articles that are primarily sex articles on the list. There's Erection, but hardly any more than that. So if you also mean the sex organs, they should stay. Like recent sources have stated, that's just the way it is that so many readers have so much interest in, for example, the Human penis size article over all other anatomy articles. Flyer22 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I suggest to remove all of them. Despite being in the projects scope they would only make setting up goals harder. The articles are notoriously hard to edit and dilute efforts that could be better spent improving other articles. The project scope covers them, but that doesn't imply they need be ranked in our most popular list. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Your reasons to remove all of them are invalid. The articles that are primarily sex-related and are largely not about anatomy, I could understand removing, as noted above (though the topic of erection is actually largely about anatomy, in addition to being primarily sex-related, despite the way that I mentioned it above). But proposing to remove sex organs from the list, which would also leave the list as inaccurately reflecting what are the most popular anatomy articles on Wikipedia, is ludicrous. Those articles, given that there is so much reader interest in them, indicate what Wikipedia, not just this WikiProject, should also focus on, as recently noted by media sources. You don't have to engage in editing them if you don't want to. Like WhatamIdoing told you in this WP:MED discussion you started, "Can you explain why you decided to start with one of the most contentious areas? I'd have taken the opposite approach: use [images] in all sorts of articles, and then come back in a couple of years and say, 'Look what normal anatomy articles are doing. Why don't we do the same here?'"
Do not try to deprive people from knowing what are actually the most popular anatomy articles on Wikipedia or from working on those articles if they so choose. Perhaps if you would enter such articles more so with the desire to work with, or take the time to work with, the editors of those articles instead of against them (such as insisting on certain images at the Human penis article), they would not be "notoriously hard [for you] to edit." Repeatedly reverting instead of amply discussing things on the article talk page and trying to reach some kind of WP:Consensus hardly ever works out. Flyer22 (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
You are missing the point. This is about internal work to improve the project, and the goals of the project are determined by those who engage in it. Concerning the other things you brought up, I'm generalizing as per what other members of this Wikiproject have expressed to have encountered. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
No, you are missing the point, as is clear from your responses above. If we are to note members of this WikiProject, as you noted below, then I'll take the time now to point out that I have been a part of this WikiProject for some time (years) and have edited Wikipedia anatomy articles for several years...though I have usually not edited them heavily. And in those years, I have never seen comments like the ones you made above with regard to sex organs. The reason that the sex organs are even listed is because they are tagged with the WP:Anatomy banner, which they rightfully should be. And this recent edit you made to the Penis article talk page, stating that "non human anatomy does not belong in scope Assessment: -WikiProject Anatomy" is as odd to me as your comments about sex organs above. Furthermore, keep in mind that the Penis article also broaches the human penis topic. Putting the Human penis size article at the bottom of the list is also odd to me, since that topic overwhelmingly deals with anatomy. There is no "Bottom" assessment field for WP:Anatomy, by the way; the "Low" field is what you should put instead if the Human penis size article is low on the importance scale. Since you pinged some people below, I'll go ahead and ping Taylornate, Grayfell, TBM10, IdreamofJeanie, Zad68 and Johnuniq. With the exception of Johnuniq, these editors have been heavily or somewhat involved in editing sex organ articles. I listed Johnuniq because in addition to helping me with sex-related articles, he often offers good reasoning. Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I see your point very clearly. The discussion on the other hand concerns how we improve the articles within the scope of the Wikiproject, and how the sex-oriented articles fall somewhat out of the scope of what the majority of editors in the project work on. We're not debating whether or not sexual organs and what-not are anatomical features, but whether it makes sense to include them in the scope of our own internal popularity ranking. The same issues have been brought up on WP:MED, having resulting in removal of many articles from their listings.
If you truly perceive yourself a member of the project then it would be great if you could engage more fully in discussion here as well as add your name to the member-list at WP:ANAT. As you haven't I don't think I am in the wrong stating you up until now haven't been a member. I edit articles concerning sex, but I don't see myself as a member of WP:SEX as that isn't my main field. I suggest we wait and hear what editors who are experienced and anatomy or medicine focused have to say instead of simply berating back and forth. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 20:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think you see my point very clearly at all. Otherwise, you would recognize how absurd your proposal to remove sex organ articles is. Sex organ articles don't fall anywhere outside of the scope of WP:Anatomy, and you are the only WP:Anatomy member so far suggesting that they do and that they should therefore be removed from the list. What you speak of with regard to WP:MED members (mainly Jmh649) having removed sex articles from WP:MED's scope, is something that I am well aware of; after all, I am the one who pointed you to those prior discussions. Also note that when Jmh649 does remove the WP:MED banner from a sex organ article, he states, "WPAN sufficient." In this discussion now at WP:Anatomy, we are not only talking about sex articles (as in non-anatomy focused articles), and I already agreed that we should remove primarily sex-related articles that are largely not about anatomy. Sex organ articles, however, are a completely different matter. You are a WP:Newbie when it comes to editing Wikipedia anatomy and medical articles (and in general, with the vast majority of your edits, often sparingly, taking place in 2006-2009 before 2013), this WikiProject does not have a lot of members (not a lot of ones actively editing anatomy articles anyway), and yet you feel comfortable stating "what the majority of editors in the project work on" and that I am not a WP:Anatomy member because I don't heavily edit anatomy articles and my name is not on "the list." The vast majority of anatomy topics are not about sex organs, which surely contributes to the fact that the majority of WP:Anatomy members do not work on such articles. And that the majority do not do so is no valid reason, in my opinion, to say "We must do away with these annoyingly popular sex organ articles."
With regard to all the WikiProjects on Wikipedia, there are many editors who are a part of a particular WikiProject but are not heavily involved in editing articles related to that project or don't have their name on "the list." I could name several WP:MED members other than myself who are no doubt WP:MED members but don't heavily edit WP:MED articles (or in general) and/or only occasionally (or sometimes) participate at WP:MED. If you would like me to WP:Echo/ping them to this discussion in addition to the other editors I have pinged here, I surely do not mind. You can call yourself whatever you want, but you don't get the right to decide what type of member or editor I am. I decide that for myself, and long ago I decided that I am a WP:Anatomy and WP:MED member. You may not have any expertise with regard to sex topics, but I do. And I have it with regard to anatomy topics as well. Especially female anatomy, as I already told you. I'm nowhere close to being an "I only edit this area" or an "I barely edit any other type of topic" editor, as is clear from my user page and as many at this site are aware of. You want to be that type of editor? Fine. But I'll keep editing anatomy articles at my own pace with as much involvement in them and this WikiProject as I want. There is no "up until now," and this is far from the first time that I have participated at this WikiProject. Obviously. So keeping all of that in mind, it only seems logical to me to call myself a WP:Anatomy member. I could not care less that you don't see me as a WP:Anatomy member. I certainly don't need your respect; I have such respect from other WP:Anatomy members, such as Taylornate, and various WP:MED members. As for berating, we are not simply "berating back and forth," but you most assuredly initiated such unpleasantry...as usual. If you wanted to "wait and hear what editors who are experienced and anatomy or medicine focused have to say," then it would have been best that you had not replied to me yet again at all. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Refrain from WP:PersonalCFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Like I told you before, educate yourself on what a WP:Personal attack is by thoroughly reading that policy. Because if anything that I stated above counts as a WP:Personal attack on you, then surely what you stated above counts as one against me. So the lesson of the day, folks? Don't behave toward others in ways that you would rather they don't behave toward you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I have stated nothing about you at all if you go back and read my text. You have portrayed me as a newbie and whatnot and commented on my credentials. I commented on the fact that you are as of yet not on the list of members of the anatomy project. I strongly suggest you refrain from stating what others are or are not. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't play games with me. What I stated above with regard to you is no worse than what you stated about me, which falls more on the topic of credentials than what I stated. I mentioned nothing of your credentials; and by "credentials," I mean any true expertise you have outside of Wikipedia. Stating that you are a newbie when it comes to editing Wikipedia anatomy and medical articles is the truth, as your edit history (including your user page and talk page histories show). The same goes for your Wikipedia editing experience in general, which is clear by you not knowing things that very experienced Wikipedia editors know. And for you to state that you "strongly suggest [I] refrain from stating what others are or are not," when you started this mess by stating that I am not a WP:Anatomy member, is just more silliness. Not only do I not appreciate less experienced Wikipedia editors trying to tell me what's the deal when it comes to editing Wikipedia, I do not appreciate being condescended to. I strongly suggest you WP:Drop the stick. Or do you want the last word that badly? Flyer22 (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
So since I have fewer edits to Wikipedia than you I am by definition a WP:Newbie? If that is so I strongly suggest you read what the article you linked to says. I have not condescended, rather pointed out that you are not on the list of members, and have not been before. This is indisputable fact. I made no remark as to whether you considered yourself a member or not. Having more Wikipedia experience in no way makes you immune to criticism, nor does it imply deeper knowledge of the subjects concerned. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
If you don't know what I mean by having called you a WP:Newbie above, I suggest you re-read what I stated. I also suggest you note the other ways that the WP:Newbie guideline suggests that an editor can be a newbie (it's there in the lead of that page). You have indeed condescended to me in this discussion. And yet another example of your inexperience with editing this site is to suggest that a WikProject member needs to be on "the list" to be a member of that WikiProject. Yes, you made "no remark as to whether [I consider myself] a member or not." You made it clear that you do not view me as WP:Anatomy member because I don't heavily edit anatomy articles and am not on "the list" for this project. And let's not for get your "wait and hear what editors who are experienced and anatomy or medicine focused" emphasis. Yes, it's time for us to refrain from speaking to each other on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
CFCF, do you know what article assessment's main purpose is (why we rate by class and importance)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

LT910001,Lesion,Was a bee,Wouterstomp,Jmh649 Ping! Need some additional views here, especially from editors who regularly engage in this WikiProject. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This discussion began with LT asking what to do with a list of popular articles in anatomy. Goals like getting the top 100 to C class above sound commendable.
Then there was a tangent where it was suggested by CFCF that "sex-related" articles be removed from WP:ANAT's scope. Agree with removal of some of the articles mentioned in this thread: sexual intercourse, and possibly erection (this is more physiology imo...but I don't think there is any WP:PHYSIOLOGY so probably it is best to keep tagged with WPANAT for now. Agree with Flyer that articles directly pertaining to the sex organs, including such as human penis size should remain as WPANAT. CFCF, suggest bring forth a list of articles that you feel should be removed from WP:ANAT to move the discussion forwards. Also, ping me if/when you start on cranial nerve, I could use some revision on that topic and I will try to help out. Lesion (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I merely suggest a number of them be removed from the popular article listing, owing to the fact that they take up a large portion of the top of the list. This makes it hard to suggest a goal that the top 20 or top 50 articles could be improved to B-class, similar to the well functioning goals of WP:MED. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Erection is under WP:MED, which should suffice. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
OK I understand now, you proposed to remove them from the popular pages list only and not from the scope of AP:ANAT. I don't really have a problem with that, but I don't really see the point in it either. Popular pages list should list the most popular pages, without interference, otherwise the reason of the list in the first place is kind of defeated. If you do create such a list, should keep the original "unabridged" list with a note to explain that accompanies each link (from the project page presumably). Lesion (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Lesion, he should not be removing them at all, per the reasoning given by me, you and WhatamIdoing above. The Human penis size article, which he recently removed from this project's scope altogether, and which I reverted, clearly belongs within WP:Anatomy's scope and on the popular pages list. There's not much more that I can state on this topic, other than what I stated above (without the bickering). Flyer22 (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
If you didn't notice I thanked you for your edit reinstating the article. It was removed in accident, when I was removing the article mentioned below. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Also would like to know how you know I'm a he? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Might be an idea for people to bring forward articles they do not feel fall under WPANAT scope to this page and/or WTMED for discussion. One such notification is below (pectus excavatum), so this is good. In all honesty I have in the past removed WPMED tags from articles I felt fell under WPANAT alone, and vice versa without making any notification. I shall correct this. Lesion (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
And then he rated the importance level of the Human penis article as NA to get it off the popular pages list. If I have to take this type of thing to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council (a part of WP:Assessment), start a WP:RfC about it or take it to the appropriate noticeboard, I will, as I surely do not feel like WP:Edit warring with CFCF over it. Flyer22 (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Have regained internet access. Agree that anatomically-orientated articles should remain in our scope, I feel is a waste of effort to work on a metric like the list itself rather than the thing it measures. However this is a storm in a teacup. If there is an edit war going on please stop it. There is no actual harm to anyone if the article is or is isn't part of this project. Given the above discussion and heated views, it is best if delisting or marking as NA is first discussed here. Kind regards, and looking forward to continued collaboration on actual article development, LT910001 (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Mostly agree (and no WP:Edit war currently going on between us). Per what has already been stated above about popular pages, I feel that there is harm to Wikipedia and therefore anatomy editors by not accurately reflecting what are Wikipedia's most popular anatomy articles. He also removed the Human vaginal size article from this project's scope (though I'm not yet sure how popular that article is and, yes, of course it is an extremely poor article and there has been discussion on its talk page to merge it). Was that removal also an accident? Flyer22 (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
From what I understand common ground has been reached by agreeing to discuss changes here first, and the aggravating editing has stopped. What's been said has been said and now let's focus on improving some Anatomy articles, which is why we are here. LT910001 (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

List of muscles of the human body by action

Am considering merging the diaspora of List of flexors of the human body, List of extensors of the human body, ... into a single listing muscles by their action. Thoughts? LT910001 (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree this would be a good idea, no need to have a bunch of hard to navigate lists. I recently split List of movements of the human body from Anatomical terminology. Don't know its of relevance, but they could complement each other well. If we really want major work, they could even be merged, but seeing as we would need to list all compound movements and any muscles involved I've been apprehensive myself. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Great, I was going to create a similar list myself. I would support keeping them separate, the list of human muscles article is already very long.LT910001 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular articles - goals added

Have added a list of goals to our popular pages list, intended as motivation only. Have left a note explaining that it is liable to change month to month alongside assessment and fluctuations in popularity. Hopefully the stats will improve over time. LT910001 (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable and good goals. Flyer22 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

We seem to be experiencing a spike in IP vandalism throughout our articles, must be a mid-February thing. At any rate, if the vandalism appears to be an ongoing phenomenon, please do not hesitate to request page protection for a few months. The easiest way to do this is to enable the twinkle tool, via preferences --> gadgets --> twinkle. A new tab will appear on all pages, one can then easily click 'rpp'. LT910001 (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Galleries

Have just discovered the existence of this tag: {{Cleanup gallery}}. When we get cleanup listings available, this may prove very useful. --LT910001 (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Anatomical series

{{Anatomical terminology series}} {{Anatomical lists}} Have created two 'series' sidebars for Anatomical terminology-related articles with this template, and lists with this template. They have can show different images, although if no image is specified they will show a default image. I hope this provides more organisation and navigability for these two series of articles. Any suggestions or comments, or suggestions for future series (which I think provide an excellent way to standardise and link closely-related articles), would be welcome. --LT910001 (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I may expand this to include Cranial nerve-related articles. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that would be great. I like the idea of a cranial nerve series template. Maybe also a spinal nerve template? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Featured media nomination of File:Normal gastric mucosa intermed mag.jpg

 
A section of the stomach antrum, illustrating the layers of the gastrointestinal wall.

Discovered this beautiful image whilst editing. Nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stomach mucosa, editors are invited to comment. --LT910001 (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It should definitely qualify, unsure what the rest of the feature image crew think, but its worth giving it a shot. (also made the preview smaller). It does' t look exactly as I was taught, as the crypts aren't visible in the deep portion of the image. Where from the stomach is this from? Antrum?CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Just saw the caption, and yes it was antrum CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of infoboxes in epithelia articles

Have created and am rolling out the above template. Have noticed that many of these articles are tagged with Anatomy infoboxes. Am considering replacing the infoboxes with the series template. Reasons:

  • These infoboxes currently are used to store images and the terminology histologica entry only
  • These articles are not about specific items
  • Items are very small and I worry that if I insert this series and the infobox it will look very ugly.

Would request comment, as I feel infoboxes are hallowed ground. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I like the template you created, but at the same time I think there is a real need to at least display one large image in the lede of articles. For example on endothelium and mesothelium I think the infoboxes do a good job. On intestinal epithelium they wouldn't. Maybe it would be possible to use the anatomy infoboxes on longer articles with sufficient content for an infobox, while shorter articles could benefit from only the template. No? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Also articles like Inner enamel epithelium are very specialized, I'm not sure if they would benefit from losing their infobox. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. --LT910001 (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Physiology

Why create this, when we already have WikiProjects that are sufficient enough to deal with physiology, and when it's been a struggle to even have an active Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy? For example, there was more than one discussion about merging WP:Anatomy with WP:MED because of WP:Anatomy's general inactivity. Of course...WP:Anatomy is significantly more active now, but I don't think CFCF, who created Wikipedia:WikiProject Physiology minutes ago, knows what it takes to see to it that a WikiProject flourishes. If the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Physiology is to simply get the physiology articles (as in primarily physiology articles) out of WP:Anatomy's scope (based on the #Discussion of popular articles commentary above), then I don't see its creation as valid at all. Flyer22 (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As Wikiproject anatomy doesn't cover physiology as it is I don't understand what is being referred to. Suggest users read the title page at WP:Physiology before drawing baseless conclusions. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Before recent removals of primarily physiology topics from WP:Anatomy's scope, WP:Anatomy did indeed often cover primarily physiology topics. There have been recent discussions at this very talk page about whether topics that are more so physiology are within this project's scope. And there are currently articles within this project's scope that one can validly argue would fit better within WP:Physiology than WP:Anatomy, such as T cell or Rod cell. Not to mention that Lesion commented in the aforementioned linked section that the Erection article seems to be more so physiology...before you removed it from this project's scope. Either way, I see no need for WikiProject Physiology. Flyer22 (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Articles may fit under both projects, and both those are anatomical features which do fall under our scope as defined on the main page of this project. WP:PHY could be of use for articles that receive little love form neither WP:ANAT nor WP:MED, such as RAS system and the entire Renal physiology group of articles. As of now the goal of the project would simply be to categorize articles, with future discussion and internal article improvement goals.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they can fit under both projects. We'll see how it works out. Flyer22 (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I wish you all the best in creating and maintaining the project, CFCF, and am sure there will be like-minded members to work with you. I advise you to make liberal use of the formatting available from other projects to make this easier (:D). I am a bit tied up with WP:ANATOMY work at the moment, but will incorporate WP:PHYSIOLOGY tagging into my page assessment and will enable rater assessment for the project. At least for the first 6 months to a year, would recommend WP:PHYSIOLOGY (which I assume will be the sobriquet) articles are not de-tagged from other projects. If you need any help please let me know, LT910001 (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I feel you mirrored my sentiments, just more eloquently summarized. For now I'll keep it as a pet-project until we have a sufficient article base to do something useful. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding multiple articles

Is there any quick way to add all these articles to the project with the neuroanatomy sub-group : Category:Neuroanatomy stubs? I find I'd rather not click through several hundred pages to check if they have been added or not? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the closest I could find, a list of articles under our scope marked with that category: [1]. Unfortunately looks like there is at least 100+ articles that have not been added...--LT910001 (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I might just take a look over by some of the programmers if there is any quick way to fix this. HotCat doesn't have that functionality right? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Not as far as I know. --LT910001 (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Methods category

I've added the methods subsection to the rater application. Examples here would be H&E stain and Dissection. Please take a look to see if its all right. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

CFCF I worry that such a category would be very small; I've created most of those categories so that users of a particular inclination (eg embryological, micro-anatomy) can easily be provided with a list of articles. As there are some additional changes that also need to be made (alterations to the template and creating the category), would you be OK if I removed this categorisation instead? The articles above could be reclassified as microanatomy and gross anatomy / metaanatomy. --LT910001 (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I just felt I had nowhere to place the stains articles (many weren't in any wikiprojects at all), but most of the stains could go under microanatomy/histology upon further reflection.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of popular articles under our scope

Have removed the following articles, relating to medical states, from our scope:

Have removed the following articles, relating solely to animal anatomy (at least in my corner of the world :D):

Am happy to discuss if there are any disagreements. --LT910001 (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So though we work on non-human animal anatomy, and there were recent claims here of anthropocentrism, we don't put non-human animal anatomy within our scope unless it is sharing an article with human anatomy? Any good reason for that? I don't mind much in this case, but I still want to know how valid the reason is. Flyer22 (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
When revitalising the project we inherited the statement that this project is about human anatomy, and I am happy to keep it that way, leaving animal anatomy to WP:ANIMALS and WP:MAMMALS. When assessing I generally keep topics that have even some relation to human anatomy under our scope, but I feel Beak is a bridge too far. Not too sure about what other editors think though.--LT910001 (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I added Hair loss when I was going through a number of hair-related articles, as it is a physiological process, but I'm not sure about that one, additional input appreciated.
I also omitted adding articles such as beard, while adding terminal hair and vellus hair. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hah, by way of tangent we at one point had about 30-50 moustache and beard-related articles under our scope. --LT910001 (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I surmised as much when all the hair related articles had been removed. We need to draw the line at anatomical structures, not things that can be done to them. Just in the same way we shouldn't cover genital mutilation or ear-rings. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed from pop list CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Have removed the article Atlas from our scope as it is not about the bone (that article is Atlas (anatomy)). --LT910001 (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Peer review of Anatomical terms of motion

Peer review is here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Anatomical_terms_of_motion/archive1, would be grateful for some comments. If we can get this to GA-status, we can use it as a template for the other Anatomical terminology-related articles. --LT910001 (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've looked over the article a little but, but I don't feel I can conduct a review as I was part of the creation. But as a suggestion maybe the following could be merged:

--CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Also found Human positions, don't know what to do with that one. It isn't of very high quality. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I think we should move the planes articles, and the majority of content on Anatomical terms of location, to a new article, Anatomical planes. It feels very strange tacked on to the end of Anatomical terms of location. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I have transferred these comments to the review so that we can have a more central discussion there. --LT910001 (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Human penis size and human vagina size

Per points raised by Flyer22 above, I've reinstated Human penis size as having a quality rating, and Human vaginal size as being part of this project. It seems very, very strange to include one and not the other, and my (admittedly limited) understanding of importance ratings is that they should only be omitted when the articles are redirects, lists, or similar. These articles were neither, and they are also both very clearly about human anatomy. Let's not ignore them because they are in bad shape, and let's especially not ignore them because they are popular! Grayfell (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I obviously agree with Grayfell. Good move on this and this. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
And for more on how the rating system works, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic, which is linked in the WikiProject banners. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for making the change, Grayfell. --LT910001 (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Four-paragraph leads -- a WP:RfC on the matter

Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Images of microanatomy

Zellfaze has kindly offered to help upload some pathology images to Wikipedia. I think this would be a great opportunity to get some images of basic structures uploaded as well. We have a small partial list of microanatomy structures here: Category:Anatomy_articles_about_microanatomy, and almost all the pages would benefit from a high-quality image if you are able to provide it, Zellfaze. This would not only help improve the quality of articles here, but also help the innumerable amount of physicians and medical students who use Wikipedia as a reference tool.LT910001 (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Ping to CFCF, Lesion and WhatamIdoing, active anatomy editors who may be able to expand this list of basic structures needing images. As a reminder, you can use the rater tool to automatically add articles to the mictoanatomy category using the rater tool as described in WP:ANATOMY#Tools
  • Give me a list of things that you guys want and I'll see what I can do to get them. I have full access to our slide scanner (well, as long as it isn't in use for a study), and I may or may not be able to get slides of things made. I'm currently working on trying to get a blood smear made and stained H&E so that we can get some photos of white blood cells. Its worth noting that I myself know close to nothing about pathology or medicine, I'm just the IT guy here at the lab (and office). It just occurred to me a week or so ago that I work at a lab and most editors probably don't have access to the sorts of things that I have access to. Zell Faze (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Missed a colon (luckily this isn't surgery ;) ), the category above now displays properly. It has 29 pages, almost all of which could do with real images. In a week, when I regain better internet access, will post some more requests. Other users may also have some specific requests. No rush to get things done, and again thanks for your enthusiasm! LT910001 (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zellfaze, I have a specific request of something that should be easy to obtain: high-quality images of epithelia. The current images tend to show epithelia with a lot of other tissues. If you were able to obtain high-quality images that mainly focus on just the epithelia (rather than with a lot of surrounding tissue, which could be quite confusing to readers), this would improve the set of epithelia-related articles greatly. --LT910001 (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll add it to the list. I should be uploading some photos of equipment today. I still haven't managed to get everything together to get images of slides yet. Things have been busy here the past few weeks. Zell Faze (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

An additional request, Zellfaze, would it be possible to get a high-quality image of Cerebrospinal fluid with a reasonable background? The current images are poor, at best. Not sure if your lab deals with this, but hopefully it may be possible. --LT910001 (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

LT910001 I'll ask. I'm currently working with the Director of Science to try to figure out what I can reasonably get. Sorry for the long delay in getting images. My actual job as the IT guy has kept me busy. I'm also currently trying to secure CC licensing to some photos of old lab equipment of ours (the photos aren't the best, but not many people can get photos of Diamond Edged Wire Saws or Tissue Baths I imagine). I'm keeping track of the list of things that people have requested, so I should be able to report back with what I could and couldn't get. Zell Faze (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Anatomical terms of location again

Am still not entirely satisfied with this article. What would be the feeling about these changes:

Update: Have started here. --LT910001 (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Update: Have started here. --LT910001 (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts? Ping to CFCF, as we have been working on improving these articles. --LT910001 (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think those are good ideas, except moving anatomical planes to terms of motion, because although motions can be made in a plane thats not the only use of planes. Maybe the best thing would be to make a single unified article for Anatomical planes that summarizes the planes?
Also have you seen Anatomical landmark? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, good point. With regards to landmarks, I'll make the merge and the move shortly. --LT910001 (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC).

Cranial nerve ready for GA review?

Is this article ready for a review? Its been improved extensively, is there anything that needs to be done before it can be reviewed? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It's clear a lot of work has been put into this article, and it's looking much better. If I was reviewing this article, I'd note:
    • Great images and very comprehensive
    • Image spacing is very big and impacts on the page formatting, and the wide tables may not be readable in lower resolutions
    • The section "anatomy" is written very technically and may not be accessible to lay readers. The lead paragraph is pretty technical too.
    • There are quite a few red links which could be piped to appropriate articles.
    • Many lists
There's a lot of variability between reviewers, so there's no guarantee they would note any of this. Would have phrased this more politely and with reference to the good article review criteria in an actual review :P. Hope that helps! --LT910001 (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I tried correcting some of those issues, and I know there is quite a bit more work that can be done. Curious though as how to proceed concerning the lists. I feel there aren't any which are out-of place, but it would be good to know what everyone else thinks? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated it, lets see where this takes us :). CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

New Contributor to WikiProject Anatomy

Just stopping by to say 'Thank You' to everyone who has made contributions to wiki, it means a whole lot to humanity.... keep it up!! : D HiYahhFriend (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks,HiYahhFriend, and thanks for your recent edits! I sometimes feel like we're standing on top of a large pyramid of previous editors, who have all contributed. PS. if you're ever looking for something to edit, the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Popular pages is a good place to start, as these are the articles most viewed by Wikipedia's readers. Cheers! --LT910001 (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
HiYahhFriend was reverted on this at the Testosterone article; clearly inappropriate text. And HiYahhFriend was reverted on this at the Hormone article for WP:Copyvio (a copyright violation), though this portion of HiYahhFriend's text was restored by what appears (appears being the keyword) to be a different editor. From what I see, HiYahhFriend needs to become far more familiar with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, including WP:MEDRS, and the others way things generally work at this site before editing any more medical/anatomy articles, especially the popular medical and/or anatomy articles. Flyer22 (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
In fact, Jmh649 (Doc James), you encounter editors like HiYahhFriend often at Wikipedia medical articles. How concerned do you think we should be about HiYahhFriend's other contributions to various Wikipedia medical and/or anatomy articles? Seems like something WP:Copyvio expert Moonriddengirl should look into. Like I just stated in this edit summary, "Be careful to look into, or more closely into, the editing background of editors before we trust those editors to edit these articles." Flyer22 (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully any such matters can be resolved, we need to work hard helping editors join our Wikiprojects. Getting an understanding of the requirements isn't easy, but the welcome message on your (HiYahhFriend) talk-page is a good start. Getting yourself well understood with WP:MEDRS & WP:MEDMOS gives insight as to what our goals are. For example this needs to be sourced.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Looked at more edits. They all appear to be copy and pasted. Someone needs to go through all his edits and review them. Maybe we simply need to delete all contributions. I am busy today. Will block this user indefinitely if it happens again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, James. Very much appreciated. A few other contributions by HiYahhFriend that I looked at also appear to me to be copy-and-pasted text because they are similar in style to the aforementioned copy-and-pasted text. I'm still waiting to see what Moonriddengirl has to state about this, including what she thinks is the best course of action. Moonriddengirl, if I've gotten your sex/gender wrong, let me know and I'll correct the "she" part. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys. Most of my edits were not copyright violations... but for those that were, I very much apologize. I am a new wiki editor, and I didn't know how seriously it is disregarded by the wikipedian community. When I have a chance, I will certainly go through my previous edits and help weed out all that is copvio. To repeat, I'm sorry, and it won't happen again.(HiYahhFriend (talk)) — Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. What is your association with Anty? Are you both in the same class? Is there a bunch more students like yourself? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I know AntyJusteen through my university's biology department. I don't know of anyone else partaking in wiki editing. I'm omy to deleting all that was copyvio...Best (HiYahhFriend (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC))
Thanks for fixing. Wikipedia does take some time to figure out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
HiYahhFriend (talk · contribs) still has not removed any possible WP:Copyvio violation; however, HiYahhFriend did state that when he or she gets a good chance to remove them, he or she will. Maybe you already removed all of HiYahhFriend's WP:Copvios, James? Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Went over a bunch of them but not systematically. Assume that this is a class project. They may be done already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

We have an issue

It appears that we have a bunch of accounts that have started at the same time and are madly copy and pasting content into Wikipedia. Looks like maybe a class of students.

I have started a list of accounts below but am sure there are more.

List of accounts

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyway these finds of copy and pasting are always depressing. Especially when there is a technical solution that could address it but the WMF doesn't seem interested in putting development resources into WP:TURNITIN. It makes one wonder how much we are missing and if a significant portion of Wikipedia just becomes copy and pasted bits and pieces from other sources, should we all just throw the towel in. Gah. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Plagiarism is completely unacceptable. Depressing to see a bunch of new users making high-quality edits to our Anatomy articles only to find this out. Have added two more users who started making edits around the same time, and appear to have been created a day or two after the originals. --LT910001 (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The Blackbombchu (talk · contribs) account has been around since June 17, 2013 and has made edits to various different topics.
The Usewhosename (talk · contribs) account has only made two minor edits to a Wikipedia article thus far (to the Adam's apple article). Flyer22 (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not affiliated a class. If you review my edits to that page, you will see that my contributions to that page are, indeed, minor, and hardly resemble a copy-and-paste job. I slightly adjusted the terminology in a couple of places so as to make it consistent with the terminology used in the introduction. In fact, I think I made this clear in the edit summaries. You should also take a look at my contribution to the talk page for that article. Usewhosename (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, that's my fault Usewhosename. At the time my internet access was limited, and I was noting that there were two other new users making edits around the same time (although as Flyer documents actually I was wrong about one of those), in the event they were sockpuppets. At any rate, welcome, and if you're interested in any particular anatomy-orientated areas please drop us a note and we may be able to edit with you :P--LT910001 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure if this is related [2], thanks Lesion (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    This is the Kinesiology 412 class. Commented on it at WT:MED. There appears to be lots of them. Mostly using primary sources. Not following WP:MEDMOS. Some of what they have added is completely wrong or not understandable. Not sure what to do really. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Is there a class page for them? Maybe could post about MEDMOS there... Thanks for having a look at TMD btw. Lesion (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry you attempted to contact the prof a few years ago [3] Any luck? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 I checked the places where I would expect to have a record of this. I do not think I made contact with the professor. The only lead I have was that those students from two years ago were from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

How large should 'clinical significance' sections be?

Many articles have a 'clinical significance' section and a separate page, such as Human gastrointestinal tract and Digestive disease. That said, both pages are going to provide a summary of a disease. So, how large should the disease section be in Human GIT? I'm considering the structure: --LT910001 (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Clinical significance
    • Infection
    • Inflammation
      • Appendicitis
      • Diverticulitis
    • Other
      • Constipation

It depends; the same way it does with other fields at MOS:MED. If there is a main article to direct readers to, then the vast majority of that material should be in the main article. The section should summarize that article as sufficiently as possible, per WP:Summary style. But sections and subsections should definitely not be too small, per MOS:PARAGRAPHS. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be preferable to mention the types of disease with a paragraph or so, instead of listing all conditions as it is now. I would just point out you missed neoplasias, otherwise I think that is a good structure. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 06:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, I did indeed omit that. I've settled for a Disease/Symptoms/Imaging structure, as I think that is more appropriate for an anatomical article. --LT910001 (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

Have changed to 20 days to get rid of some of the older threads here. Any problems please drop a note below. --LT910001 (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Great, I feel that's suitable for the increase in activity. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Linking anatomical terms

Excellent! Now that we've got a full suite of anatomical terms pages, we can start to link to them. I have been contemplating integrating the relevant links into the templates. This seems like the easiest way to reach users in different areas. I am doing this because:

  • Anatomical terminology is confusing, and requires some time to familiarise
  • A link on articles is an easy way to help lay readers
  • Incorporating into the infobox is quite a simple way to reach all relevant articles (eg muscles, bones)

Example of linking Anatomical terms of muscle to the muscle infobox in a sandbox, below:

{{{Name}}}
Anatomical terms of muscle

insert description here

Template parameters

ParameterDescriptionTypeStatus
NameName

Stringrequired
ImageImage

Stringoptional
WidthWidth

Stringoptional
CaptionCaption

Stringoptional
Image2Image2

Stringoptional
Width2Width2

Stringoptional
Caption2Caption2

Stringoptional
Pronunciation Pronunciation

Stringoptional
pronunciation pronunciation

Stringoptional
mapmap

Stringoptional
MapMap

Stringoptional
map_positionmap_position

Stringoptional
MapPosMapPos

Stringoptional
ImageMapImageMap

Stringoptional
ImagemapImagemap

Stringoptional
image_mapimage_map

Stringoptional
MapWidthMapWidth

Stringoptional
map_captionmap_caption

Stringoptional
MapCaptionMapCaption

Stringoptional
LatinLatin

Stringoptional
latinlatin

Stringoptional
GreekGreek

Stringoptional
greekgreek

Stringoptional
SystemSystem

Stringoptional
systemsystem

Stringoptional
OriginOrigin

Stringoptional
originorigin

Stringoptional
InsertionInsertion

Stringoptional
insertioninsertion

Stringoptional
BloodBlood

Stringoptional
bloodblood

Stringoptional
ArteryArtery

Stringoptional
arteryartery

Stringoptional
NerveNerve

Stringoptional
nervenerve

Stringoptional
NerveRootNerveRoot

Stringoptional
VeinVein

Stringoptional
veinvein

Stringoptional
ActionAction

Stringoptional
actionaction

Stringoptional
PhysicalExamPhysicalExam

Stringoptional
part_ofpart_of

Stringoptional
AntagonistAntagonist

Stringoptional
PrecursorPrecursor

Stringoptional
GraySubjectGraySubject

Stringoptional
GrayPageGrayPage

Stringoptional
MeshNameMeshName

Stringoptional
MeshnameMeshname

Stringoptional
MeSHnameMeSHname

Stringoptional
MeshYearMeshYear

Stringoptional
MeshNumberMeshNumber

Stringoptional
MeshnumberMeshnumber

Stringoptional
MeSHnumberMeSHnumber

Stringoptional
DorlandsDorlands

Stringoptional
DorlandsSufDorlandsSuf

Stringoptional
DorlandsIDDorlandsID

Stringoptional
DorlandsPreDorlandsPre

Stringoptional
FMAFMA

Stringoptional
TA98TA98

Stringoptional

I would like your thoughts on:--LT910001 (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this a good idea?

Any objections to appending this to the relevant infoboxes (currently muscle and bone)?--LT910001 (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this formatting OK?

IE - should the message's location change to top, should we remove bold/italic, etc.--LT910001 (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments

I think the format is perfect, italic bold at bottom. It's visible enough, without blocking out any other useful information. The only thing that I feel is missing is maybe an Anatomical terms of the brain? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Although that might need to be added to these instead:
{{{name}}}
Anatomical terms of neuroanatomy
{{{Name}}}
Anatomical terms of neuroanatomy
--CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Found this as well:

{{{Name}}}
Anatomical terms of bone
--CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep, I'm going to stick with our existing anatomical terminology series for a little while. My plan is to add muscle to the muscle box, bone to the bone box, and possible anatomical terminology to some of the other boxes. Unfortunately the syntax of the templates look like hieroglyphics, so I am a little reticent to make the change just yet. If we are considering future terminology templates, I think an Anatomical terms of microanatomy may be warranted, as well as the Anatomical terms of the nervous system or Anatomical terms of the brain as you state. I feel really pleased with this series, because I (hope, at least!) it's slowly developing into a very useful educational resource. --LT910001 (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Goals

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy#Goals.

We're well on our way to achieving the goals, likely the result of some vigorous reclassification, but also from significant editing by many editors. Hurray! --LT910001 (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move: Diastema (dentistry)

I believe Diastema (dentistry) should be the primary topic for Diastema. Please see discussion at Talk:Diastema_(dentistry)#Requested_move. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

Have created a barnstar to celebrate some of the efforts of some of the lay editors who've been helping out behind the scenes. After all, who doesn't like a golden doubloon?

To insert in a user's page, insert: {{WPANATOMY-barnstar|~~~~}} (this will display with your username)

  The Golden Doubloon of Anatomy
You have been awarded the prestigious Golden Doubloon for your services to the WP:ANATOMY WikiProject. This special award is given to lay editors for their efforts in assisting the WikiProject. Thanks! LT910001 (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Could be difficulty in identifying persons as "lay" or otherwise... could cause offense. Lesion (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. My intention is to have something to give editors who have helped out, but don't regularly contribute to Anatomy articles. Recently we've had some really great editors helping fix the templates, enable the Popular pages, and supply some international pronounciation keys for some of the trickier items. Any thoughts on phrasing other than 'lay'? --LT910001 (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The potential implication is that only persons with a professional degree would be considered members ... if referring to persons who irregularly contribute to WPANAT, suggest "lay" is not accurate. For example, a professor of anatomy might only contribute occasionally whereas someone with no formal anatomical training might contribute daily... Imo would just leave off the whole second sentence. Lesion (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Removed. --LT910001 (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Merges

We don't have cleanup listings available, but we can use the article listing tool to list categories. One useful listing is a list of current mergers proposed. That's here: [4]. --LT910001 (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Would it be ok to have a centralized discussion (e.g. here) about all these to clear them? Lesion (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree it would be very useful to discuss or at least post here some of the more popular or longstanding/inactive mergers here. Given that there's 70, I think discussing all may be a little too much... additionally would prefer if possible that discussions occur on the talk pages, as that way the discussion is recorded in a place associated with the page and visible to future editors. --LT910001 (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone please check change to Pineal gland.

I have no idea what the sphenopalatine and the pterygopalatine ganglions are. I've just noticed that a new IP (apparently first and only edit) has just changed the one to the other, with no edit summary, here (diff). Will someone knowledgeable please check whether this change should be reverted or not? Thank you, --Hordaland (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

They are ganglia associated with the cranial nerves I think. I will take a look. Lesion (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it is ok since they appear to be synonyms. Sphenopalatine ganglion redirects to pterygopalatine ganglion. Lesion (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, they appear to be synonyms; [5]. JakobSteenberg (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, both! --Hordaland (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Input needed on RfC at Talk:Pathology

There's a debate underway at the above article concerning the breadth of concepts which should be covered in the article. However, despite the high-profile nature of the article, it has only so far managed to attract the opinions of three editors (the two original parties in disagreement and myself) and, having seen very similar discussions on the scope of articles within the domain of medical science here, this seemed the ideal place to solicit further unbiased input. I'd have taken the issue to WP:WikiProject Physiology, which would nominally be the better home for such a request, but of course that is presently a project in name only. I'll be posting similar notices on WP:Wikiproject Medicine and WP:Wikiproject Biology. Snow (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Featured List Promotion of Anatomical_terms_of_motion

Am trying to get this promoted to a featured list (nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Anatomical_terms_of_motion/archive1), with any luck hopefully this can help us get the other articles in the Anatomical series to FL or GA status, too. Would appreciate any last-minute corrections! --LT910001 (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I changed some of the imagery, feel free to revert it in case you liked the other version better. I think the current version is easier to follow, instead of a large image at the start of the section. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Have replied on the talk page (summary: thanks =P). --LT910001 (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Fields on talkpages

Hi. Could anybody tell me which fields our articles can be divided into? I figured out we have gross, micro and neuro. Are there any other? And could we find some place on the project page to put this information and maybe link to categories such as [6]? Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are willing to install the addon Rater all the fields can be selected from a drop-down menu. This should definitely be in the tools section, but I don't have time to fix it right now. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
JakobSteenberg see here for how to add the very useful Rater tool: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy#Tools. There are several categories. I will add references to the categories soon. --LT910001 (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like I spoke too soon. A link to the categories already exists here: Category:Anatomy articles by topic. --LT910001 (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. I could not get the Rater-tool to work, but no matter. I wasn´t planning on doing a lot of assessments I just wanted to be able to fill out talkpages I was visiting for other purposes. JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking about those categories though, maybe it would be good to have bone and muscle instead of placing them all under gross anatomy? Thoughts? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. But there could be added more categories such as e.g. ligament or joint. But then again we already have a system for categorizing (by adding e.g. category:bone to the article) so I really don´t feel very strongly either for or against. Maybe such categorization would be better to do on wikidata since most readers properly don´t use the Wikipedia categories (still there is nothing wrong with doing it on both Wikidata and Wikipedia articles + talkpages). JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Disagree... we already have infoboxes and categories for that (eg. See this category for muscle: Category:Muscular_system and similarly for other areas). Changing the classification will essentially be duplicating the category and infobox structure, and also much harder to implement (if we have a category for each structure we can easily have 20+ categories, which is very confusing). I expect interested contributors are interested in different fields of anatomy, supplying text or images to eg gross anatomy, microanatomy, embryology, history of anatomy, etc. so I created these lists so we can easily give those contributors a list of articles that can be worked on. I think we've used this twice already, and hopefully we can make use of it more in the future, particularly when coordinating when other individuals, organisations, WPs, and in WP:MED. One major reason for creating this field division was that I have seen a few times organisations offered help on WP:MED and the response is an arbitrary pooling of resources, whereas these lists can be more comprehensive -- this way we can make more use of offers of help. In particular, if we could find an open-source dictionary of embryology text or images, we could quite easily transfer that content utilising the category structure. I'll update the main Anatomy page to make this a bit clearer. (Expanded for clarity) --LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I see your point and understand. Guess work is simply needed categorizing articles. Many lack proper categories atm. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Add one item to welcome template

I have been using {{WPANATOMY-welcome}} to welcome users. I'd like to add this point, as it is something I encounter quite often:

  • Please remember to write clearly using non-medical terminology where possible, as the majority of readers are lay readers who do not understand anatomical terminology.

Thoughts?--LT910001 (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think its very hard to define what is acceptable terminology, and what isn't. Inferior view is in my mind something a lay reader would understand, but I'm not sure. Maybe there should be a list of terms we could use instead for consistency? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I would at least like to make editors aware that there is a difference. I think that they may, but I personally think it makes things harder to read, and if possible I would like to write at a high-school rather than university-grade level of English (although some sections, eg histology, have irreplacable terms). I guess we could create a list of some recommendations? I would like something to show new editors to let them know there are easier ways to write about anatomy. --LT910001 (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've started a sandbox here User:LT910001/sandbox/Simplifying anatomical terminology as an essay on anatomical terms and invite other editors to contribute with simplifications. --LT910001 (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a guideline about not using language that is too technical. See WP:Technical; I thought that this is what you were alluding to above, but since I haven't seen you bring it up here in this section or at your newly-created essay, I take it that you didn't know about that guideline? Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I didn't, but thanks! I've linked it in the essay -- feel free to expand the essay, if you can think of anything else --LT910001 (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Planes

Now that we have a separate article, Anatomical planes, should we concatenate the stub articles into a List of anatomical planes? (planes are here: [7]). I think this would be a very useful list to have, rather than separate articles. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Triangles

To continue the theme of geometry, I stumbled across a number of triangles of the human body ([8]). Lesion, who I feel is probably most knowledgeable about these, I was wondering if any of these are duplicated articles or targets for merges? I was going to rename some pages consistent with Wikipedia's naming styles (ie capital followed by lowercase), but when I saw how neglected the pages were, I thought I'd ping you and any other users to see what you think. --LT910001 (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Re most knowledgeable, would that it were true. Re the ones in the neck, anterior triangle of the neck and posterior triangle of the neck, and the articles on their "sub-triangles", everything looks ok. Perhaps all those could be merged into one article? Agree sentence case for article titles, even redirects. Lesion 11:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Fascial compartments

I found these articles to be a bit all over the place, one defining the leg as only being from the knee and down. I was thinking of merging them all into a main article. Thoughts? -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, see Fascial spaces of the head and neck (work in progress). Lesion (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree. The list of 15 articles is here: [9]. I'd completely support a merge into the articles you propose (leg/arm; thigh could possibly be incorporated into 'leg') --LT910001 (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there a need for different stubs on Fascial_compartment and Compartment (anatomy)? According to the latter, a compartment may also be bound by bone... Lesion (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been bold and merged these two, as they appear to be a clear duplication. The latter stated that compartments may be bounded profoundly by bone (ie there may be bone structure next to the fascia). Another example of why I am not too keen on overuse of anatomical terminology =P. --LT910001 (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh is that what the "profound" thing meant? I remember reading that several times with no clue what it meant. =) Lesion 23:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I noted that the fascial compartment lead still is defined in terms of the limbs? Is this referenced, or can other parts of the body have compartments? This was the case on fascial spaces of the head and neck, but I did not put a reference to that sentence at the time and now I can't remember which it was. If the term "fascial compartments" is usually confined to the limbs then ok. Lesion 11:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Gray's anatomy subproject

We have listed on our list of open tasks the Gray's Anatomy subproject. I had a quick look in this history of the page and this has been around since at least 2006. Is it time to mark it as historical? --LT910001 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't had anything to do with that particular project, and I don't really know of anything to be done. The only reason I kept it was for historical purposes, so I'll move it now. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 05:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Second WP:ANATOMY quarterly

The quarterly has been released and is available here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Quarterly updates/2. --LT910001 (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Trachea

Trachea is currently split into two small and unloved articles: Vertebrate trachea and Invertebrate trachea. Trachea itself exists as a disambiguation page. Have proposed a merge; would value some input. --LT910001 (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the articles should be separate. I saw this a few months ago, but never got to merging them. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Great CFCF, would you mind putting that on the article's talk page as well? --LT910001 (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Merged Iztwoz (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Medicine Translation Project Community Organizing

I'd like to ask of you to take a look at a Wikimedia IEG grant a few of us over at Wikiproject Medicine as well as here are behind. You may likely have heard of the translation of medical articles that is being done (if not please take a look at w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation Task Force). The goal of the grant is to get the translation and integration process to run smoothly, and to assess which articles are the most important to translate. We've come far at w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT, but to get further we feel there is need for some form of organization, preferably by someone who can devote significant time to the task.

The reason I'm writing here is that articles concerning anatomy are relevant for translation as well. Many of the articles with clinical significance are definately candidates. I'm very hopeful that I can provide real benefit through applying for this grant, as there are so many articles on Wikipedia that could help people all over the world.
It's even more important when you take into account drives such as Wikipedia Zero, and readers who might not have access to any medical information at all can benefit.

Please take a look at the grant page: Medicine Translation Project Community Organizing, and add a comment or give your ideas on how we can best benefit other Wikipedias.
Thanks, -- CFCF (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A very worthy cause, thanks for letting us know about it. --LT910001 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Organisation of Heart articles

It seems we have a whole stack of heart-related articles:

Physiology articles:

I think it is a little superfluous to have these articles (Atrium (heart), Ventricle (heart), Heart chamber) in addition to the articles about Heart and Human heart. They will essentially duplicate information contained within the human heart article, but not contain enough information that is in depth for the Left/Right Atria/Ventricle articles.

I feel we should merge all three to Human heart, but am not sure if this is the best solution so I thought I would ask here before proposing the merge. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit: feel free to add to the list above if I have left any out
  • Agree in this case, several articles could be merged. Human heart article is not very well developed yet, so could easily have several of these subtopics, each appearing rather short, merged in without the article becoming too long. Lesion (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Partially oppose: I think it would be great if someone went through the articles and added all the information to human heart. HOWEVER; can we please keep the original articles on the list such as left atrium instead of turning it into a redirect? ...I know that e.g. left atrium is far from being a great article, but if people search for left atrium specifically (or click on a wikilink) why not have an article for it. There is plenty of information that can be added to the article to make it into a great article (the information could even be more detailed/"less reader friendly for a lay person" since the basic information can be found under human heart). If Wikipedia was a print Encyclopedia (with a limited number of pages) it would make perfect sense to completely move all the content from left, right atrium and so on into the heart article. But since we have infinite space/pages why not keep the more specific articles, so that people who search for a specific topic only get information about that and not "broader information". Hopefully in time articles like left atrium will be greatly expanded.
I hope my long post makes sense otherwise please ask. P.S. for more articles on that list see Category:Heart. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I feel I am mistaken, and more asking for thoughts about how to improve this structure rather than support/oppose. Am of course not proposing to concatenate the entire article tree into the article Human heart, that would be ludicrous.
My meaning is that, in addition to Human heart, there is the article titled Heart chamber, a third article titled Atria (heart) and the two last articles on the actual atria Left atrium, Right atrium. This is not only confusing but extremely fragmented, and means that not only do readers have to access a large number of articles to get a full picture, but also means that we have to rely on 5x the amount of editing (or more) to get the quality of these articles up. I think the general articles (chamber, atria (heart)) could be merged into Human heart, and the articles about the separate entities (Left/Right atrium) can be maintained as separate entities. I feel this is similar to what you are suggesting, actually. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Have rearranged by topic for easier reference. --LT910001 (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Am proposing the following merges:

Ping to Iztwoz who has recently contributed on one of the talk pages. --LT910001 (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Organization of Gastrointestinal tract articles

Iztwoz has kindly created the article Human digestive system to fill a gap in our systems articles. Unlike most systems, the gastrointestinal tract also has a significant cross-over of content, not to mention a mess of child articles:

Am not proposing changes to any of the subdivisions (!), however it does seem to me there is quite some cross-over. --LT910001 (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC) (1) Does anyone know of any additional shady articles, or articles that may be duplicated? (2) Thoughts on merging Colon (anatomy) to Large intestine and deleting Iliac colon?

Edit: Feel free to add any to the list above if I have left any out.
Added some CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
About mergers please see my comment under Organisation of Heart articles. JakobSteenberg (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Have updated and slightly restructured the above list. --LT910001 (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed nerve anatomy illustration

I'm thinking of commissioning a professional medical illustration of a nerve from Blausen Medical. I have something like this in mind. Might such an image be useful? It's rather expensive, so I'd appreciate feedback before I proceed. If anyone is aware of an existing free image of similar scope, I'd appreciate a link, too. I've left this message at Talk:Nerve#Proposed image, so it's probably best to leave any thoughts you may have there. Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well there are these two:
So far I haven't gotten to organizing all the images I've uploaded perfectly, but I'm working on it.

-- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I see it's already in the article, and I don't think I have anything better. Will take a look. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Mnemonics again

Even though the admin decided not to delete the article List of mnemonics for the cranial nerves, after I removed all unreferenced content, it was 100% duplication of content that was already on the articles cranial nerves and facial nerve, so I blanked it leaving a redirect to cranial nerves.

Now, a mnemonic was removed from trigeminal nerve in this edit [10]. We seem to have similar mnemonics on cranial nerves and facial nerve.

The MEDMOS tends to encourage us not to include mnemonics. A few very important ones might be beneficial imo. What do you think of this removal? Regards, Lesion 19:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The need for a mnemonic reference has to be very limited and in the body of an article they can interrupt the flow. And cannot see the point of their inclusion at all especially since there are lists such as list of medical mnemonics that can always be added to 'See also'. So I think the removal is fine (by me). Iztwoz (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen that mnemonic before, and I don't like using pages called Medical mnemonics to reference them. Only in the case of really notable mnemonics do I think they should be in the article, such as the two that are in Cranial nerves -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't heard it before either, which is why I can rarely remember which nerve goes through the foramen ovale and which through the foramen rotundum. It's a nice one, but agree not sure it is notable. Lesion 21:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Put it on list of medical mnemonics. Lesion 21:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that's a sensible decision. I can't think of too many notable mnemonics outside of emergency medicine, my personal favourite being To Zanzibar by Motor Car (Facial nerve), as it's somewhat poetic. Agree it is strange to put mneomnics in articles, as we are essentially saying: here is the information, and here is a way to remember it. It would be very strange on other articles, such as today's FA Elgin Cathedral, if sections were provided with 'helpful' mnemonics, and as part of the same encyclopedia unless they are quite notable I think it is strange here too. --LT910001 (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Spinal nerve lists

We have individual articles on each of the spinal nerves. In my view that's a detriment to readers, because these articles in my view serve mainly as a point of reference for what would happen if there was a lesion. As a point of reference, and because of their sparse content, they'd be much better displayed as a list. Therefore I propose a merge to List of cervical nerves, List of thoracic spinal nerves and so on, so that the information can be more readily accessed. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Have proposed merging the small articles on various spinal nerves into the Spinal nerve page. Have just noticed that on the Spinal cord page there is a list of nerves next to a diagram - Divisions of spinal segments- did you mean a more comprehensive listing? Iztwoz (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Have just seen the individual listings you were referring to - I would agree that they would be better in lists as suggested. Iztwoz (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Archive time

With activity dying down, I've changed the archive time -> 28 days. --LT910001 (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Anatomy article

I deleted some un-sourced text from Anatomy the article, partly because it seemed out of context to me. My point of view is that the un-sourced text blurred the study of anatomy and the study of pathology into just the study of anatomy. The editor,, who is also the GA reviewer, put the text back and has started a discussion at Talk:Anatomy#Preservation_of_content, and I would welcome more opinions over there. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame that it's uncited, but I would suggest you read up a bit on anatomical studies before removing that type of content. Should not be hard to find a source, looking into it. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of redirect

I have proposed two redirects for deletion, as I can't see a person deliberately searching for A to get to B, and they are too broad to be disambigs. For example, inferior border could refer to the lower surface any number of bones, organs etc., so it is strange to have a redirect pointing just to the pancreas.

I'd very much appreciate if someone familiar with anatomy could contribute, even if you disagree.

The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_8#Vertebral_border. --LT910001 (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, those are rediculous. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree CFCF, we ought to orange them better. --LT910001 (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Added some comments on the deletion discussion, hopefully those without sufficient knowledge can stay out of the discussion in the future. As for more articles these are also silly:

Despite being current redirects I don't think they are of very much use. I would also go as far as to suggest all those articles be merged with scapula, there is no point in having a separate article on each border of the scapula. Anterior superior iliac spine is one thing, seeing as it is such an important landmark, but superior border of scapula? WP:NOT? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a redirect to Anatomical terminology#Relative location would be less controversial? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree re: WP:NOT - this has been one of my drives for a while, but I've been quite slow about it. Also agree, a redirect seems most promising after the sub-articles have been merged. --LT910001 (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Link to in Template:WikiProject Anatomy

I think that there should be a link to Category:Anatomy articles needing attention in Template:WikiProject Anatomy, although the category is automatically added to the list of categories. Requesting suitable intervention. DiptanshuTalk 07:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your request, I'm a little unclear what you mean by this? A link where? Please feel free to make the change you think is needed and then we can discuss if there're any issues. --LT910001 (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Probably referring to having a link to the attention/infobox/photograph categories from the appropriate line of text in the template, rather than just placing the article in the respective category (and having to go to the category by clicking the link on the bottom of the page). The template uses the standard output from {{WPBannerMeta}}, so if you'd like this change, you should being it up at Template talk:WPBannerMeta. --Scott Alter (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Shortcuts

I've made the existing shortcut visible for this page: WT:ANAT and added WP:ANAT500 to point to our most popular articles. --LT910001 (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This article has an issue

I raised this issue here because Tendon is under the scope of this project. I came to that article as part of the GOCE's May backlog elimination drive. However, the Healing section took me into something more complex. While I tried to copyedit that section, I noticed that the terms there may be too technical or jargon such that it becomes difficult to understand. Is it appropriate to continue copyediting, add the {{Technical}} tag, or just remove those things that makes it puzzling? Thanks in advance, Japanese Rail Fan (Talk) (Contributions) (Public log) 10:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. I see what you mean: EG "The three isoforms of TGF-β (TGF-β1, TGF-β2, TGF-β3) are known to play a role in wound healing and scar formation". See what you can do, and I'll help out. --LT910001 (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems copyediting isn't the only issue. Some parts of this article are very close to at least one journal article. Have responded on the talk page. --LT910001 (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Goal achieved!

We've achieved our goal of 500 articles at C-class, and will hopefully achieve our goal of an article to GA class soon. This has represented a doubling of the C-class and GA articles since this project first begun. Some caveats: much of this relates to reclassification of articles; we have also inherited about 200 articles co-classified with neuroanatomy; there will be some articles incorrectly classified as C-class. That said, it's a significant achievement. Well done! --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Where to from here

When we have achieved these goals, what should the next set of goals be? I propose:

  • A goal of 20 GAs
  • A goal of 150 B-class articles, or
  • A goal of 750 C-class articles

These goals are not too ambitious, but I'd like to set some goals that can be achieved, because it feels good and is quite motivating to achieve a goal. Any other ideas for goals? --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think those goals are great, maybe with the exception of the C-class goal. The addition of neuroanatomy articles is far from done, and many of those are C-class level, I think filling that number may go quite quickly. On the other hand having some short-term goals might not be too bad either. Keep up the good work! CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Excellent! I've changed "Goal 2" to 150 B-class articles, and then in the table collapsed below it, increased the C-class goal to 750. --LT910001 (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Lymphatic system

A very popular article (72,000+ views/month) yet very poor on several fronts (coverage, layout, comprehensiveness). One of our 50 most popular. Would invite other editors to comment on what could be improved at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lymphatic system/archive1 and/or to help out with some editing on this article. Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

'Easy cite' templates

This template is available for 'easy citations' of some histology articles: {{BUHistology|url}}. However it's very frustrating because it doesn't provide an access date, nor authors, and isn't formatted like any other citation, which makes preparation for GA frustrating and also liable to link rot if the website is changed.

Is there a way to make this and other such templates suitable for GA other than replacing them with text? Something that may be useful is adding authors, a substituted 'Retrieved date' and replacing 'BU' with 'Boston University' on the template. I'm posting here because there are a number of such templates and it would be better to have a central place for discussion. --LT910001 (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Ping to Was a bee, who previously did work on another similar template.
I'll try to fix this. --Was a bee (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I updated the template {{BUHistology}} and replaced its inline usage (as like this[11]). Not yet implemented 'Access data parameter' but is it better to exist 'Access data parameter' for GA or FA? --Was a bee (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for this, Was a bee. --LT910001 (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 6".