Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

I am an almost retired medical anatomy prof and would like to get involved with this project. It is not at all clear how to do this. For example, how do i add myself as a participant. Any help would be appreciated. I can be emailed directly at javilensky@yahoo.com Anatomyczar (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)anatomyczar

Hello Anatomyczar. It's great to have another editor interested on the subject, welcome! If you want to add your username to the participants list, just go to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Anatomy (the main page of this project), click edit on the 'Participants' section and add this: * ~~~ (this is replaced with your username and a link to your talk page when you click Save page). Have a quick look at the core policies of Wikipedia and be bold at editing. Feel free to ask here or on my talk page if you have any more questions. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I am making some progress in that I found a page that lists all the articles that need cleanup. Still very confused about templates and many of the abbreviations used. But I will start on those pages that need cleanup. I do know how to do that. And I did add my name following the syntax under edit, but my name now appears in red, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talk • contribs) 18:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anatomyczar! I would like to extend a very warm welcome to a new compatriot on anatomy articles. We're fewer than one might imaging, and have a repertoire of over 10,000 articles to handle. Also I would suggest that even if you only intend to work on anatomy articles you introduce yourself over at WikiProject Medicine as well.

The red color is because you as of yet do not have a user page. If you press the red link you can create one for yourself if you wish (it isn't strictly necessary).

Templates are one of the most confusing things on Wikipedia, and your comment makes me wonder whether we shouldn't focus some effort in making a guide for template usage in anatomy-related articles. As for now the most important template is the Template:Infobox anatomy, and getting some idea on what parameters it takes can be helpful when improving content.

I work quite a bit with images of structures and LT910001 is working on templates and improving content, so feel free to ask us anything about the project and we will try to help you. If there is anything in particular you would like to work on and want assistance with please do ask! We need help with text, sourcing, photographs, images etc., so just give a shout and we'll try to assist as best was can. Thanks, -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I also dropped a welcome message on your talk-page which has some decent introductory links, for example it discusses how to cite sources -- CFCF 🍌 (email)

：Great to have another new interested editor! You're more than welcome here. I recommend set yourself a small focused goal in a local area -- eg the ear, structures of the middle ear, the respiratory tree, particular muscles groups, something like that, and work within that area. Don't pick something too controversial as there are lots of disruptive editors that will suck up your time, and make sure you add sources when you update information (there is no "take my word for it" on WP!). Let me know if you need any help by writing on my talk page. It's great to have another editor! (As CFCF says at the moment I'm working on templates, but I will probably return in some months to article editing). WP is extremely complex but if you pick a local area you can make a real difference. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome aboard Anatomyczar. One thing I found very helpful when I started editing Wikipedia was to simply post a link to the article I was working on here and saying; this is the article I am working on. I would like the article to have something something like THIS article have and post another link. Then some helpful soul would insert a template, a reference or something else directly into the article I was working on. Then the next time I needed such a template I could just take it from the article I worked on previously and put it into the next. Over the years I worked up a mental list of which articles I could "steal" things from, copy/paste it and then change it a little bit instead of trying to remember how to solve the problem from the beginning. Feel free to post what you are working on and let one of us give it some small tweaks; it is a fast and easy way to move forward with what you are working on and learn how to edit at the same time because of the alternative is to get lost in some of Wikipedias more general guides or templates... and it does not take much effort from our side with most things. Just remember to be bold, don´t be afraid to make mistakes and just start editing. Happy editing. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. At the moment I am doing a ridicules large side project and I could really need your help. I am going through the list of all our articles, lists and redirects in alphabetic order and adding redirect from plural and singular terms e.g from Gastric artery to Gastric arteries. I have added hundreds of these while doing other things like watching TV and I just got down to "G". The next time you edit an article could you please look if there is a redirect from the singular/plural form and if there is not; add one? It only takes a couple of seconds do one, but it takes forever to do for the entire project. I know it does not seem that important but it can save our readers a click or two, reduce the number of red links (also when editing) and when it is done there is no upkeep and it will last forever. If ten people do ten each over the following month it starts to add up. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If you add the WP:Anatomy banner to the talk page of the redirect it will show up on the list I use and save additional time. Thanks. JakobSteenberg (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Vaginal tightening and Vaginal laxity articles. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kevinpmcgowan have added a lot of links in the external links sections of anatomy and exercise article and I posted the following on his talk page:

Hi.

I noticed that you added a lot of external links on different articles towards http://elitemensguide.com/.

This looks a lot like spam which is agains Wikipedia guidelines. I do not know if you have any particular interest in promoting this website or simply thinks is a good website. But would you please stop adding these links?

If you think that this website has some information to the general reader and I am misinterpreting the situation please let me know and I will listen. But please do not add any more of these links until you have presented a good argument to why these have some for of value for Wikipedia and is not just spam.

In case this is deliberately spamming I can tell you that these link are classified as non-follow links meaning that they will not count toward a higher listing at Google or any other search engine, that all statistics show that the fewest number of readers click on our external links and that I gladly will hold my other contributions to Wikipedia and spend my time deleting every single added. So this is a case of deliberate spamming, and I am not saying that it is, it will only waste both your and my time and have zero effect on the promotion of the webpage.

By the way I also copied this discussion to WikiProject Anatomy, since many of the articles in question falls under this scope, where I hope you and I can have a productive conversation.

Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought it could be of some interest and if cleanup is needed it is always nice to be more people on that job. JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• The URL is used at Special:LinkSearch/*.elitemensguide.com. The issue is possibly more for WP:ELN, but I regard the link, for example, at Biceps#External links (added 15 December 2014) as unhelpful and aimed at promoting an external site. Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I will keep this in mind the next time. It turns out this was done in good faith and the user is willing to stop adding these links and be discuss the issue. Sorry for the inconvenience but no further action is needed. JakobSteenberg (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think this article is quite close to GA status, and would like to invite editors to review its suitability, and hopefully stimulate some more editing prior to nomination. The review is here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Heart/archive1 and I invite editors to comment / edit.

I am interested in whether this article in general form good enough to meet GA status and provides useful and comprehensible coverage of the heart to lay readers. I am not interested in long debates about the Sanskrit spelling or pronunciation of "heart" and pointless time-consuming minutiae.

Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

In addition to beginning to edit wikipedia anatomy pages, I am also a co-editor of the Journal, Clinical Anatomy. I have been asked by the Editor-in-Chief to write an editorial on "Wikipedia and Anatomy." This will briefly look at a non-random evaluation of accuracy, but also on what really is covered and what is here. In other words, for example, I didn't know and I don't think many professional anatomists know about Wikiproject Anatomy and about the many individuals who spend their time trying to improve the anatomy pages. And you may not know how frequently professional anatomists have to deal with students trying to convince us that the wrong information they found on Wikipedia should be counted as correct on an exam. If you have any specific comments on "Anatomy and Wikipedia" I would greatly appreciate hearing them and it would be easier if you emailed them to me directly at vilensk@ipfw.edu Anatomyczar (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A good place to start and clear up some misconceptions about Wikipedia writing for students is here: WP:NOTTEXTBOOK

A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead (and also maybe the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic.

And this:

Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible

Additionally it may help you to know a significant proportion of our corpus is derived from Gray's Anatomy 1918 (20th edition), probably anywhere between a quarter and half of the text on articles. I hope that helps. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Tom, this is very helpful especially the material about Gray's. Do you have any idea how many pages the AnatomyProject encompasses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talk • contribs) 12:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC) :

Hi @Anatomyczar:. Here is statistics of this project (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy#Article_assessment_statistics). This statistics is automatically upadated everyday by bot[1]. Though there are some jargons, "number of anatomy related pages" is 12,237 (shown at the bottom right of the table). This number contains project pages (this page), category pages, redirect pages and so on. Actual number of encyclopedic content, to say "number of anatomy related articles" is 4,693, summation of number of FA, GA, B, C, Start and Stub (4 +15 + 102 + 575 +1535 + 2462 = 4693). Thanks.--Was a bee (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Was a bee. How interesting, our popular pages list has a different count. It must use a different method. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, surely. Wikipedia:ANAT500 uses number 5,190 (shown at the bottom line in the table at right). This number would contain not only articles, but also lists and so on. I think this number (5,190) is also a reasonable number for coverage of this project. --Was a bee (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

For @Anatomyczar:, as additional information, here is an interview for some key contributors to this project (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-03/WikiProject report). I hope this could helps you to see the participant's vision, interest, motivation and so on. --Was a bee (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Does anybody here use AutoWikiBrowser? I have seen somebody going through our infoboxes and straiten them out and I have another small task that is perfect for AWB if two tasks can be done simultaneously (I have never used AWB and does not know much about it). We have the {{Gray's}}-template that is often dumped at the end of the articles. IMO this should be moved up to the reference section and if we do not have a reference section we should add one if the {{Gray's}}-template is in the article. If nobody objects isn't this a good task to delegate to AWB?

Can this task simply be added as a "secondary protocol" or would it require going through the articles a second time using AWB? If it is the second option I can try to look into it, if people think the {{Gray's}}-template belongs under references. If it can be done by simply adding another task (meaning from what I can tell very little extra work) is there an AWB user who will be willing to do this? Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jakob:. Currently the template {{Gray's}} is transcluded in 1,977 pages[2]. As far as I checked some of it, 80-90% of {{Gray's}} template are placed at the first line of "References" section. And others are in "External links" section or just at the bottom of the page (with stub templates or navigation temlates). I agree that these locations are not appropriate for this template and should be relocated into "References" section. AWB setting for this task is bit complicated, but I'm trying to fix this. --Was a bee (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Thanks for the reply:. If it is a complicated task then I am sure you can spend your time better here on Wiki. When I find the templates in the wrong place I will manually move them as I have been doing and if we all do it when we come across them, the problem will be solved as some point. Thanks for the explanation. JakobSteenberg (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jacob. A bit complicate, but I suppose I did go mostly well. I think we came across :) --Was a bee (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Currently text in {{Gray's}} is written as follows.

This article incorporates text from a public domain edition of Gray's Anatomy.

Actually the edition would be 20th edition of Gray's Anatomy which was published in 1918. I think this year "1918" would be better to be included in text as information. But I can't think better text. Would somebody update text? --Was a bee (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that that should be mentioned. My best attempt: This article incorporates text in the public domain from the 20th edition of Gray's Anatomy (1918). --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't judge English well though, but it seems very nice to me. So I updated the template. Please check it. Thank you Tom! --Was a bee (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Am seeking a diagram to illustrate what this article is. So far, I can't find any here or on commons. Are there any around? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to contribute to the below discussions. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• 20 Apr 2015 – Glomerulus (kidney) (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by LT910001 (t · c); see discussion
• 07 Apr 2015 – Heart (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by LT910001 (t · c); see discussion

Hi. I stumbled across Wikipedia:Bot requests and started wondering if this could be of any use to us. I have previously manually tagged redirects to our articles with {{WikiProject Anatomy |class=redirect}} perhaps as a symptom of OCD when I came across them.

Can you guys think of any reason for not taking all our articles, see what redirects to them (perhaps including redirects to redirects) and adding {{WikiProject Anatomy |class=redirect|field=}} to their talk page? ...I must admit that I do not have any compelling reason why this is needed but I am a bit curious if somebody could make a bot to do this. If it ever comes to a request them I will emphasize that there are no strong need for this and that the "bot maker" only should do so if it a small and easy task. I have no idea how complex the task is but I see no harm in asking provided you do not have a reason why we should not tag our redirects.

Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC) ：Sounds like a good idea for a bot. The benefit to us would be we can start to monitor all the changes on the redirects and get an idea of our scope. As you state, I can't think of a reason why we shouldn't. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is here: Talk:Glomerulus_(kidney), needs some more input from other users. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

New category Category:Anatomy websites created. If you know any pages which fall under this category, please add category to that page. Thanks. --Was a bee (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, how interesting. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There has for some time been a proposal to merge Mesentery and Transverse mesocolon. Neither of these articles is about the word "mesentery" in general, they are about a particular, important example of a mesentery. I would not like to perform the merger myself because I do not know enough about the topic. However, I would like to see the merger done because I want to free up the use of the word "Mesentery" to cover the word's much more comprehensive use in other parts of the animal kingdom. At the moment, if I want to mention a mesentery in a sea anemone or a segmented worm, there is no suitable article to link to. Any suggestions on how best this can be dealt with? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest refer to Mesentery#Other animals or Mesentery#Worms or something like this for the moment - this would be consistent with the general structure we use for articles - unless you are about to upload a lot of content. We had a one-time use who uploaded articles about the separate mesenteries, but if you have a read they could be greatly simplified as they are full of pointlessly technical language ("The principle of mesenteric contiguity helps conceptualize several heretofore unresolved anatomic issues"). I hope that helps. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do what you suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of IDs of Uberon (multi-species anatomy ontology) from Wikidata (d:Property talk:P1554) into {{Infobox anatomy}} is requested at Template talk:Infobox anatomy. Any comments or questions are welcome. --Was a bee (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds very useful, in particular because it is inter-species. Is the wikidata side of things already filled out? I've had a look at Head ([3]), fascinating. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Currently I'm adding little by little. Now, about 300 items are registered[4]. At the end, 3,000 or 4,000 items will be added. --Was a bee (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

A series of "embedded navboxes" are present within all anatomical navboxes. These provide links to templates within a relevant area -- for example, all cardiovascular disease-related templates are linked alongside cardiovascular anatomy and treatment templates. This is designed to help readers navigate a large amount of medically-related articles grouped by template. This was previously announced here. The set of templates are here: Template:Medicine navs and during editing many anatomical editors have provided feedback.

Deletion has been proposed for one such template {{Infestation navs}}, with a stated view to deleting the entire set. That discussion is here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_29#Template:Infestation_navs, please contribute. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

A new article on an anatomical variant in the hand, extensor medii proprius muscle, has been created a while ago. If possible, please help expand the articles on anatomical variations. Very little has been done in the topic. I will try to compile the list of variations, perhaps more systematically (by region e.g., back, abdomen, lower limb, etc.). We can start from there. --Athikhun 10:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athikhun.suw (talk • contribs)

Thanks Athikhun.suw, it's always good to have more editors on board. I'll see if I can expand those articles as I encounter them. Ping to CFCF who's previously expressed an interest in this area. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome Athikhun.suw! I haven't seen you around before, but I'm very glad to see a new face. Actually I created a list about a year ago at List of anatomical variations. It's very rudimentary, and doesn't include a fraction of what are documented variations, but it's a start. I've tried to organize it according to: accessory, missing or plainly variant features, which at least to me makes some sense. If we quickly want to expand it there should be lists available in the literature, I will check. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I found this atlas resource: http://www.anatomyatlases.org/AnatomicVariants/AnatomyHP.shtml

Was a bee do you know if this type of resource could be added to Wikidata? A large part of the work is essentially a list, which as far as I understand isn't under copyright. So if we were to exclude the definitions or rewrite them, would it be permissible? I'm sure many of these aren't included in the TA, and many would not be presently on Wikipedia as is either. Could we import this to Wikidata to create a list? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting website! From that they say "feel free to link" at FAQ#5, and URL is generally not coptrighted, I think it is possible to include correspondent linking URL to each Wikidata page. Only problem is, I suppose, that they have about 3,500 pages (I counted by using tool. See User:Was_a_bee/AnatomyAtlases). Many pages. And there is no clear relations between URL and its subject. So if we include linking URL, we should add each URL manually one by one (to say, automatic adding-process would not be possible). IMO, for the situation for now (small numbers of variation articles), I feel that making "external link template" for AnatomyAtlases.org (e.g. Template:AnatomyAtlases) and putting it at "External links section" of each articles would be better. If template-links stacked hundreds or thousands, it is not so difficult to transfer whole linking-URL data into Wikidata (by bot scripts like harvest_template.py and so on). --Was a bee (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

On a side note, would an annular pancreas be considered a variation or a pathology? The article seems to present it as purely pathological, which is different from what I learned. Sources seem to be rather weak, with one from 1975. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Most variations lie in a gray area, and I'm sure (without having a comprehensive list in my head) most involving the GIT have the potential to be pathological. EG even the infamous Meckel's diverticulum is not always a cause of pathology yet is styled as one here. That said in my understanding annular pancreas is a non-pathological variation most of the time, so if there are no strong objectors we could style is as an anatomy article. If that's the case should we do the same to Accessory spleen? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I added more more variations in the hand extensor compartment to the list since it is one of those areas which are highly varied. I agree with Tom (LT) that some variations lie in the grey area, i.e., whether they are variation or pathology. Apart from that, classification is another problem. Recently, I encountered a variation of the left marginal artery (of the heart) originating directly from the aorta. However, such a variation can also be described as an accessory coronary artery giving rise to the left marginal artery. It is hard to decide which one to use because both descriptions are acceptable. One more thing, I believe that the varying features of a structure can be added to the existing article under a new heading (e.g., variations) rather than creating a new article explaining the features. What do you think? --Athikhun (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Varied features of a structure can be added to the existing article as a new heading. An example can be seen here, extensor indicis muscle. Perhaps we can do this for all anatomical structures that exhibit variations. What do you think? -Athikhun (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, Athikhun.suw. In fact we generally put 'Variations' as a subheading of the 'structure' section (see eg Gallbladder). For most articles the recommended structure can be found at WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As some watching this page know, I only add subheadings when needed; I cannot stand subheadings for a little bit of material, and am quick to cite MOS:Paragraphs on that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone look at this and figure out what's what? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The IP-comment is correct. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a bot, KasparBot, which has been busy putting "authority control" templates on many anatomical articles. See eg Blood–brain barrier, which now has an authority control box. My question is... should we consider moving much of the information out of the infobox identifiers section into the authority control box? --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ping to Was a bee who is active in this area.

Interesting idea. As far as I see {{Authority control}} template, this templates treats basically large scale controlled vocabulary. So, for example, I feel "Gray's anatomy page data" and so on, would not suit for this template. But I think there is one important candidate for Authority control from our field, that is MeSH terms. If MeSH terms added to Authority control template, the template appearance would become something like this (see the most right part). --Was a bee (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point, not all of the identifiers are useful. I agree MeSH is one such useful identifier. What about UBERON, which you recently proposed? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't think about UBERON. Because it doesn't have direct linkage to library or book data. But it is huge cross reference of many anatomy terminologies and ontologies. In that sense, perhaps UBERON is good candidate in Authority control template. --Was a bee (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I am proposing the List of images and subjects in Gray's Anatomy lists of images to be deleted. The discussion is here and I invite comments: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of images in Gray's Anatomy. This proposal will not affect the availability of any of the images and just refers to the pages listed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, already closed. As you say, I also feel that this type of list is difficult to say encyclopedic content. But at the same time, I have used similar image list many times, the image list for Sobotta by CFCF, to find wanted image. So, if list covers all images in single page, I think such list can be helpful for editors, rather than readers. Therefore I tried make similar list for Gray's Anatomy in my userspace (User:Was a bee/Gray). I wonder if it is useful for editors that there are links to this kind of image lists in the project page. --Was a bee (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Was a bee such a list would be useful. There's a commons category here: Commons:Category:Gray's Anatomy plates with a much larger collection of Gray's Anatomy-related images.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Tagging anatomy and sexual talk pages with Template:Reliable sources for medical articles. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

A little late to comment on this one but all I do wish these public service announcement-like edits were accompanied by edits to the content of the articles themselves. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean that tagging articles with Template:Reliable sources for medical articles is like a public service announcement? Flyer22 (talk) 03:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat delayed response here, sorry. Yes I don't think it helps the articles but it feels good to tell other users how it should be done. On the other hand I admit said boxes may be (theoretically) useful. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I propose deletion for our alphabetised lists of Gray's Anatomy 1918 subjects here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/List of subjects in Gray's Anatomy. Comments invited. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Last call: this MfD has now run for the statutory week, and I plan to close it as delete all unless there are any objections from this WikiProject within a day or two. (Of course, someone else may close it at any time), JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Not 100% sure of this but suspect is true. Thoughts? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems true. FMA[5] and RadLex[6] define nasopalatine foramen as a synonym for incisive foramen. Thanks.--Was a bee (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Added. Thanks, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

All of the Neuroanatomy stub templates I've seen are at the very bottom of pages, where they're very unlikely to be seen. Other non anatomy articles I've read have their stub templates front and center at the top of the page, which I think increases visibility and awareness. If the goal is to get contributors to help out where they can, wouldn't it make more logical sense to place the "This article is a stub" at the very top of pages, so more people see it, rather than basically hiding it in the "fine print" that nobody pays attention to at the bottom??? Bush6984 (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Great to have you here! If I were you I wouldn't bother that much with those templates. Quite a few features on Wikipedia are more or less legacy features that aren't used any more, and I don't really see the usefulness of the stub templates. I think Wikipedia:Manual of style mandates they should go a the bottom, and it's not really worth-while getting those policies changed. If you're interested in contributing to the project give us a heads up and we'll try to guide you to where your efforts are needed the most. Currently we have a few editors (myself included) working on the Cranial nerve set of articles. They are of varying quality, and seeing as you're interested in neuroanatomy that might be a good place to start. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I am proposing the remaining List of images and subjects in Gray's Anatomy lists to be deleted, following the recent successful deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of images in Gray's Anatomy. This concludes my Gray's Anatomy 1918-edition related set of nominations. The discussion is here and I invite comments: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of images and subjects in Gray's Anatomy. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Newcomer here; not sure if it's a big deal/priority, but as I was just trying to get familiar with how to help, and reading over the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy (not Talk) page, I tried following one of the links in the Tools section, and noticed that all four links that go to a toolserver.org page, Reflinks, Checklinks, Dab solver, and Peer reviewer didn't work for both my GoogleChrome and Internet Explorer 9.

I'm not sure the correct links that should be used alternatively, otherwise I would have just fixed them. Sorry that I can't help more than just bringing the issue to your attention. Bush6984 (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Honestly I haven't used those tools myself, and rather than specific anatomy tools they are general tools. If noone adds anything to this discussion in the coming days I'll just get rid of them from the tools section. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Noone's disagreed in the last 3 days and I don't think this is contentious, so I've gone ahead and boldly done this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Breast#Edit request Jul 18 2015: Aspect with regard to both sexes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Ddamoah (talk · contribs) has been going around adding real-life images of female genitalia while removing real-life images of male genitalia (including an image that looks like it's a real-life image at the Dorsal veins of the penis article). For what I mean, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. I'm guessing that Ddamoah is male, and is removing the images based on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rationale. Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of why he's doing it it's clearly disruptive. I've placed a warning on his page. Let us hope it does not continue. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you and Iztwoz helping out with the reverts, and you helping out with issuing the warning. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell, regarding this, see what I stated above in this section if you haven't already. Flyer22 (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Per the cluey Eleassar, in arch of aorta we write this:

The ductus arteriosus connects to the lower part of the arch in foetal life. This allows blood from the right ventricle to mostly bypass the pulmonary vessels as they develop.

Yet in the Ligamentum arteriosum we write this:

The ligamentum arteriosum (or arterial ligament) is a small ligament attached to the superior surface of the left pulmonary artery and the proximal descending aorta.

This is reflected in a cardiology textbook here [7] yet my Gray's Anatomy 40th edition states "the ductus arteriosus shunts blood from the pulmonary trunk to the arch of the aorta" (page 1028). Do any other users have any sources on this? My feeling is that the real question here is where does the descending aorta begin? I look forward to the opinions of other users on this... and sources will be appreciated --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• The following articles will need a look-over when we have some consensus: arch of aorta, ductus arteriosus, ligamentum arteriosum, descending aorta, aorta. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC), and arch of aorta) --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Owing to their relationship with the ligament these will also need a look over: pulmonary trunk, truncus arteriosus, recurrent laryngeal nerve, aortic arch (6), left subclavian artery, pulmonary artery. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The sternal angle is used to divide the mediastinum into superior and inferior mediastinum (Moore clinically oriented anatomy 7th ed., p.128 and Anatomy of the Thorax)

If you look at the mediastinum from the lateral view with the lungs removed and draw an imaginary line from the sternal angle (2nd rib as landmark) posteriorly toward the back, the line would mark the beginning of the descending aorta. So basically, the descending aorta is contained within the inferior mediastinum right after passing the level of sternal angle. The same link above also mentioned that the descending thoracic aorta was contained within the posterior part of inferior mediastinum --Athikhun (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

In fetus, the ductus arteriosus connects left pulmonary trunk to the descending aorta [8]. (See page 202 for the drawing) But after birth when the ductus becomes the ligamentum arteriosum, the part where it ends appears to be closer to the arch of aorta as it develops. In my opinion, when talking about the ductus arteriosus in newborns I would refer to the descending aorta for where it connects. But when talking about the ligamentum arteriosum in mature individuals, I would say it connects to the arch of aorta as it is clearly seen in cadaver dissection. --Athikhun (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. I wonder Athikhun if the ligamentum in fact retains its position, yet as the sternum ossifies the sternal angle moves downwards and the definition of beginning of the "descending aorta" changes. Hence it is correct to say that it attaches to the descending aorta in fetal life yet the arch of aorta in adult life. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I note in our article it is written "proximal" descending aorta, which might be an attempt to say it connects to the part of the aorta which is structurally descending after the arch, even if it doesn't match the technical definition. What would resolve this is a specialist publication on the position of the ductus arteriosus and ligamentum arteriosum. I'll try my luck. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Very good point, Tom (LT)! Frankly, I don't know exactly how the ligamentum changes over the course of development. But I guess it is unlikely that it would retain position. If you compare the picture (on page 202) of the ductus arteriosus, you can see that the ductus runs 'downward' from the left pulmonary trunk to the aorta, whereas in adults the ligamentum runs 'upward' from the pulmonary trunk to the aorta. For the position of the beginning of the descending aorta to the sternum as the sternum ossifies, I believe that its position relative to the sternal angle remains unchanged because the position of the heart is kept in place by the sternopericardial ligaments, which firmly attach the heart to the sternum. This could be the reason why the sternal angle is used as landmark for many structures in the mediastinum. --Athikhun (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You make a good point. It may be a case of differential rates of growth of different parts of the cardiovascular system that cause its position to change. I've added some more articles that I'll look over when I have time and continue to ponder this topic this afternoon. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I think these sources elucidate this: [9] (p60: "the ligamentum is attached to the inferior aspect of the arch, just beyond the origin of the left subclavian artery") and here [10] (p463: "The transition between the aortic arch and descending aorta is show. The part of the aortic arch that is positioned between the origin of the left subclavian artery and the attachment of the ligamentum arteriosum is on the left or terminal part of the arch... In the literature, this part of the arch has been labelled the isthsmus of the aorta.") --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom (LT). I echo you on calling the part the 'isthmus of the aorta' as I'm reading multiple sources right now. So let's put it this way. The ductus arteriosus connects the left pulmonary trunk to the isthmus of aorta. Perhaps the article isthmus of aorta should be created too. --Athikhun (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Athikhun.suw on further reading, I think it is most accurate to say that the ductus arteriosus connects to the junction between the isthmus of the arch of aorta and the descending aorta. The isthmus is the narrow distal end of the arch of aorta.[11] (p100) The reason that it's called 'isthmus' is that it's relatively smaller compared with the descending aorta in foetal life, because it's the cranial-direction outflow of the ductus arteriosus in foetal life, and the rest of the arch dilates when the left ventricular outflow increases over time. [12] (p442). --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm confident we have found the right answer here and will create the article and update the suite of articles shortly. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

{{ Human cell types derived primarily from mesoderm }}

My question is: is this navbox useful?

We have the parameter "Precursor" in our anatomy infoboxes. So we can easily add information about embryology to the infoboxes of articles (see eg Podocyte), and then add a list on Mesoderm?. I just can't see how this template is useful for navigation. If a user is interested in mesoderm, they will just go to that article. To be clear, I'm not proposing this navbox for deletion, but I'd like the opinions of other editors as to what could be done. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, at a future day I'd love to integrate such data with Wikidata so we can have a clickable tree of the embryological structures. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

OK This is my proposed solution: Only retain precursor cells, not the end cell types. That way we won't end up describing all cells in the body. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: have renamed references to the systems to the underlying stem cells (which the links pointed to anyway). That way the templates are less confusing for users of the navboxes, as the entire system referred to isn't always from a single precursor cell, but the stem cell is. I'm usually pro simplification, but in this case I think readers who actually use the navbox titled "Cells derived from mesoderm" will be familiar with some of the terminology. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This edit: [13] brought to my attention the fact that we have a single article for both BA 41 & 42 at Brodmann area 41 & 42. What are thoughts on this? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There is one article for postcentral gyrus that covers BA 1, 2 and 3. It seems that BA41 and BA42 are better covered in the same article as together they make up the auditory cortex and they are in such close proximity to each other. --Iztwoz (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

We have {{Brodmann area}} and {{Cerebral cortex}} both of which list all 52 Brodmann areas as links. It seems that we've been giving them their own articles. Thus far. I'm not that familiar with neuroanatomy and am not sure how notable or relevant Brodmann areas are to modern neuroanatomy. Maybe Tryptofish can help.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tom for asking me. I've looked at some of the BA pages, and I think the most revealing place to see how pages might fit together is at Brodmann area#Brodmann areas for humans and other primates, where each area is listed and correlated with a page named by brain region. (I started, instead, by going to {{Brodmann area}} and clicking on the first few links, which led to laughably repetitive results.) My bias on neuroscience pages is to prefer longer, more fully developed pages, over multiple stubs or short pages. Obviously, that's subjective, but it would tend to make me want to merge. So, for example, I would probably like to merge Brodmann area 43 into Gustatory cortex. For cases like areas 1–3, where we currently do not have separate pages for each one, I think it is reasonable that we not have individual pages, because each of the three areas can be easily found at Postcentral gyrus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've left a note linking to here at WT:Neuro. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Per a discussion at Talk:Human brain development timeline I have proposed three moves:

• Human brain development timeline -> Development of the human brain
• Neural development -> Development of the nervous system
• Neural development in humans -> Development of the nervous system in humans

This is broadly consistent with our other "Development of..." articles, and also uses terms readers are more likely to immediately understand ("nervous system") rather than "Neural" (as described in the essay WP:ANATSIMPLIFY).

I invite the comments of other edits, and if there are any similar articles we can focus on. Many thanks to Niubrad for pointing this out. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

An excellent online professional text published in 2012 is now available online. I have found it to be extremely useful. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Your HotArticlesBot subscription has been activated! I went ahead and added the chart to your main WikiProject page. Feel free to move it elsewhere. The chart will be updated once a day. Kaldari (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kaldari! --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

RockMagnetist thanks for your points made about navboxes at WP:MED. You made a number of points about the navboxes used in anatomy articles (that's what we focus on here) and that's been something we've been working on here for the last half-year or so. From what I make out, in summary your points were:

1. We do not name articles in a way that is easy for readers to understand
2. We use way too many navboxes in our articles
3. Our navboxes are overburned by these internal link boxes.

A discussion about (3) is taking place at WP:MED. We've been trying here at this Wikiproject to work through our articles and link them / represent them in a readable and understandable way to users. I noted in particular you made reference to the large list of templates at List of bones of the human skeleton. I agree with you, as users are much more likely just to want named bones (rather than every article we have). Please feel free to comment about any other anatomy articles below and we can start to think about how they're arranged and organised. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. That is a big improvement at List of bones of the human skeleton. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe one way to understand anatomy is to draw. But drawing is not easy for most people (including me). So I started drawing these templates. It's very useful when trying to visualise the structures like the attachments of muscle, nerves, blood vessels and all that. I'm not sure whether any of you here is working as anatomy instructor, but I hope my templates would be useful for students. For now, it does not include all the regions in the body but I will keep going. --Athikhun (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for contributing these Athikhun.suw. I had a look at your user page and some of your anatomical illustrations are excellent. I'll see if I can use some of the images on articles (eg some of your dissection and histology), if they are not already. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I love these simple illustrations that can be adapted and reused–and I had the idea that I was going to do something similar but I'm glad to see you beat me to it. One tip though would be to upload them as .SVG files. Doing so would make them easier to retouch and adapt as we go along. If you don't have that possibility I can convert them for you, but they would lose some quality. Also what programs are you using to draw these, I'm happy for any tips.
P.S. I work as an instructor, I'll definitely be able to use these next semester in some of the smaller lessons. CFCF 💌 📧 00:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that you are interested in my templates, Tom (LT) and CFCF. I drew them using pen tool in Photoshop, but I didn't save them as paths or export them as vectors. I just learned to convert them to .svg, and yes the quality is impaired but still acceptable. I will re-upload them soon. What programme would you recommend drawing these? A freeware would be nice though. --Athikhun (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe I hadn't answered (I had written a response and just not clicked save I guess). The best tool is Adobe Illustrator, but often I find Inkscape (Open source) is just as good or not better for some tasks. If you are willing to create a full body skeleton that would be amazing and we could finally get rid of the horrible out of proportion:File:Human skeleton back en.svg & File:Human skeleton front en.svg.
Best, CFCF 💌 📧 09:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps motivated by this conversation (?) user Swpb has been very helpfully creating a template (Template:Anatomical diagram requested) that readers can put on pages to request an anatomical diagram. That puts the article in a category here: . Athikhun.suw looks like many of these articles may benefit from your skills :)--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

That's awesome. I'm actually planning to take a course in vector illustration next semester, so given if I have enough time I will also try to produce some images. Athikhun.suw, what pen/tablet do you use? I have the Wacom Intuos small, but I'm not too pleased. I don't know if that is because I don't have enough experience or because it's bad. Are you planning on getting the new iPad Pro with the stylus? CFCF 💌 📧 12:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I only use mouse. I'm planning to buy a drawing pad and Wacom Intuos is one of the options. For now I will stick with Photoshop and Inkscape. Btw thanks CFCF for introducing me Inkscape now I got many of them in .svg format (with 100% quality). Unfortunately it seems like Wikipedia doesn't allow reuploading in a different format. --Athikhun (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Per the discussion on WPMED I've proposed two images of the skeleton for delisting because of concerns about accuracy.

I've also proposed this image for delisting because of concerns about accuracy and its poor style Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/Human_arm_bones_diagram.svg

And this image because it is very small: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/Small_anatomical_images

I will be proposing some images in the future per this previous discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy/Archive_9#Featured_media. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Anatomical terms of location#Anterior redirect and other redirects going to the Human anatomy section. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Bra, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. sst✈^(discuss) 08:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

made template:anatomy terms add articles to categoryMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Will someone familiar with what this project expects please check Special:Contributions/Mahfuzur rahman shourov. For example, Category:Anatomical terms has been moved to Category:Pages containing Anatomical terms. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I've started this stub:

• Hard tissue

Kind regards, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Two main areas which our articles are missing is in the 'other animals' and the 'history' sections... most of the other areas have been filled in over time.

@CFCF and other users, do you know of any (ideally recent) public domain sources we could use to buff up these areas in many of our articles? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I propose that instead of 10+ separate stubs that are anatomical lines we simply move all anatomical lines (of which there are theoretically an almost infinite amount) to this list, which I just created as a split from another article: List of anatomical lines

All articles can be linked so that they redirect to an individual entry on the list.

Benefits would be:

• Centralise information
• Compare and contrast information
• Create a really useful index-like article with a good introduction and reference list for the future

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LT910001 (talk • contribs)

As usual, that is a very good suggestion. My only thought is whether it should be Anatomical line or List of anatomical lines? CFCF 💌 📧 13:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be better to create the article Anatomical line (or whatever name is most appropriate) and leave the stubs as they are, Rigth now mid-clavicular line redirects me to Anatomical terms of location#Anatomical landmarks and because it is such a non-specific article there are no room for e.g. a refered pain-section or even an image showing the mid claviculare line...

With axillary lines (which is way more specific althoug not divided into seperate articles for anterior-, mid- and posterior axillary lines) I can get information about things such as ECG electrode placement.

IMO if you would like to create an article called anatomical lines you should go ahead and do it, such an article would be a wonderfull addition to Wikipedia and I will gladly pitch in; but I see no reason at all to delete or merge the stubs it is covering.

I think you and I must have had the philisofical less versus more articles debates at least five times over the years and tend to represend each end at the spectrum but I still wanted to give you my two cents on the subject since you tend to take it into account. Goodday to you sir or maddame. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

{{research help|Med}} Would it be useful for this to be on all our pages?

Astinson (WMF) has asked for it to be put on all med pages. As many of our readers are likely to be students, I think this would be great to put on our anatomy pages, too.

What do other editors think? and Astinson, would this be possible? --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi all! Thank you for bringing up the conversation here Tom! I would be very excited to see more WikiProjects using {{Research help}} and our WP:Research help page in the research sections of Wikipedia articles. We would be very happy for WikiProject Anatomy to joint our pilot of the template in Reference sections. Our hunch, is that many of our readers, and librarians and teachers who teach our readers, don't have a firm understanding of how the communities content is created, nor how to effectively use the footnotes and research materials as part of a research process. We hope that by including more clear (and initial survey feedback, and pageview stats suggest that there is a sizable minority of readers who want this information). For our full strategy, see WP:Research help/Proposal for more information.

If you would like to include Anatomy articles in the pilot, we would welcome a consensus among Anatomy editors to participate. For more information about the pilot and strategy for spreading the page, see Wikipedia:Research_help/Proposal#How_do_we_plan_to_solve_it?, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The articles Deep fascia and Superficial fascia are full of old dubious statements, or otherwise questionable sources that should be vetted. I would invite other members to take a look before I take an axe to it. CFCF 💌 📧 18:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I've merged superficial + visceral fascia to the main page, feel free to take an axe to it. Additionally in my experience we English speakers do not typically refer to "fasciae" but instead "fascia" so I've changed the article in that respect. I checked oxford and Collins to make sure I'm not the exception here! --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There's some discussion at Talk:Gastrointestinal_tract#Dab_page about what to do with that title. It's currently a redirect to digestion, but is proposed to be a dab page. Plantdrew (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this article might be suitable for a good article nomination, per Iztwoz, and I'll be nominating in a few days. Please help out by copy-editing and providing sources - the two main areas that may be noted in a review. See you on the page! --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ping also to CFCF who's also contributed significantly to editing the article.

Midriff is listed as part of this project, but the topic doesn't appear to have any relevance to medicine. The article's content is entirely focused on the perception of women's public display of the midriff.

Any thoughts from members of this project about this? Is this article relevant to include in the Anatomy Project?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

In summary yes. I should write an essay WP:ANATNOTMED which lists our points of difference, but in short, anatomy is concerned with the structure and layout of living things (and this project mostly concerns itself with that of humans). This is usually, but not always, related to medicine - which seeks to exploit knowledge of these to improve our quality or quantity of life. Two separate fields. So yes, midriff does relate to anatomy, but not to medicine. --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Tom. A discussion has started at talk:midriff about what to do with the article (which is pretty bad overall). The current suggestion is to redirect to a different article, either navel or abdomen. Input from this project would be helpful.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Think I saw somewhere that the use of the word innervation was to be changed in favour of nerve supply - if I did has there been any further advice on this as I don't think I've seen its use anywhere.? --Iztwoz (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this would be a good idea. It would removed one bit of jargon without any "loss of information" or specificity that I can think of. Can anyone think of a good argument why not to change it? JakobSteenberg (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember specifically discussing this in general but it seems like a good idea, because it's much simpler and easier to understand. Perhaps we can add it to either WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy and/or the essay WP:ANATSIMPLIFY --Tom (LT) (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It's here Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Simplifying anatomical terminology --Athikhun (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Over the last couple of years I have been working on femur and have recently been wondering if it could be brought up to Good article status. I do not have any real experience with this process and was wondering: Is the article even within reach of a nomination? Three years ago an IP editor nominated it for GAN but it was rejected prior to review with the explanation: "Removing GAN tag (article is completely unready, added by brand-new IP), bumping to C-class per discussion below". Since then a bit of content has been added and a bit of polishing has been done. Even if the article is not ready for GAN I am looking for ways to improve it. The first things that comes to mind is a clean up of the gallery. Do you have any other suggestions? Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The article looks good, although I will swing by and help later too. Good articles are reviewed against six criteria here: WP:GA? In my experience the sticking factors are whether the article is verifiable, and all the parts are addressed with adequate references, and whether the article is broad enough - meaning it adequately covers all its major areas. Other concerns like images or prose can be dealt with in the bulk of the review.

Specifically for femur, I'd recommend giving it the once-over to make sure everything is copyedited, add references to the sections without it, and expand the "clinical significance" section (consider including signs, symptoms and investigations, information about the location of the fracture and how it affects these, maybe compartment syndrome and pressure ulcers (at the trochanters) hip replacements (including elective), avascular necrosis of head of femur, and maybe Ewing's sarcoma). I'll try and help out this week but I might not be able to until next week. When you've done the above and feel ready in 1-2 weeks to nominate, go for it :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Add: and Hip examination and use of femoral trochanter as an anatomical landmark and for calculating apparent leg length could also be included. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please help fill in the empty boxes in the table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachial_plexus#Specific_branches ? 173.225.249.190 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The information isn't missing, rather the nerves don't have a muscular or cutaneous innervation. Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

We have a welcome that can be transcribed to the talk pages of new editors that may be interested in our project:

• {{subst:WPANATOMY-welcome}} --~~~~

This has now been integrated with the "Twinkle" tool. If you have the tool enabled, you can now to go the talk page of a new user and click "TW->Welcome". If you view a change made by a new user you will also seen a new link "(welcome)" next to the diff, if the user has no talk page. Click on it, and you can then go to "WikiProject welcomes" and you'll be there :). It's much more convenient than the older method, in my opinion. See WP:TWINKLE for information on how to get it set up.

Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to thank you guys for inviting me to this project. I am willing to make a few animations and release them on creative commons. Please feel free to request them here. Have a nice day! DrJanaOfficial (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That's fantastic! I can't think of any right now but there must be many :). Thank you for making yourself available! --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome aboard. Please let us know here if there is anything we can help you with. JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, let me know if there are any image requests... Thank you.DrJanaOfficial (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Will someone with competence in the evolution of the eye, please look at today's comment(s) on the Talk:Eye page? Some clarifying is needed in the article. Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

See Evolution of the eye. This project is is a medical project about human anatomy. Evolution is outside its scope, since evolution involves animals that are not humans. If you need further help, you could try WikiProject Animal anatomy, WikiProject Evolutionary biology or WikiProject Palaeontology. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the matter: Talk:Human sexuality#Should the anatomy images or other images have references?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a DYK nomination pending to be reviewed depending on the outcome of this discussion. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Yash! 12:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The term medullary bone presently redirects to the article Medullary cavity. As I've explained on that article's talk page, medullary bone is a very different thing—a special type of bone tissue found in pregnant female birds and dinosaurs—which needs its own article. I imagine some participants in this project will be interested in that, and I'd be grateful if some knowledgeable person would supply such an article. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing this out, Jdcrutch. Wikipedia and its content is created by volunteers like you (or me) and I'd encourage you to be bold and create an article (even a small one) reflecting what you've said. We have a related project, animal anatomy who may have some interested editors who are willing to help. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. FYI Portal:Anatomy is currently being discussed at Wikiproject Medicine (direct link) if anybody is interested. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks for pointing this out and to CFCF for creating it in 2013. Should we make this the default link on our WP templates? It may be worth editing the page and doing that. Fine, it doesn't get many views, but it gets more than a thousand yearly, which will increase as we shift the portal link. Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

i would like to help correct this information,the mathematics behind number of oocytes and follicles lends to all references to number of said cells to be incorrect. There cannot be a million oocytes at birth. Using math, if a primary follicle is 25μm in diameter then that would make the ovaries combined size 25 meters large. (2.5x10^7μm ÷ 1,000)⇒25,000mm; (25,000mm ÷ 1,000) ⇒ 25m. In order for there to be one million oocytes in an adult overstay the size of 50mm they would have to be 25 nanometers in size, the diameter of a microtubule. [Erickson, G, Glob. libr. women's med., (ISSN: 1756-2228) 2008; DOI 10.3843/GLOWM.10289 , http://www.glowm.com/section_view/heading/Follicle%20Growth%20and%20Development/item/288 ] [ https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cell_Biology/Introduction/Cell_size ] [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubule ]

   Wikipedia's page on folliclegenesis references the size of a primordial follicle being even larger at 30-50μm (measured in partial millimeters), which would yield a combined ovary diameter of 30-50 meters in diameter. A micrometer is one millionth of a meter or one thousandth of a millimeter which is one thousandth of a meter. A meter is 3.28084 feet. This count would require the ovaries to be a combine into a size of 90 to 150 ft in diameter, the average adult ovary is reported to be 5cm.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.129.247.172 (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC) 

Thanks for pointing this out, IP 38.129.247.172. I'll get on to this tomorrow. We'd also love an extra member - please consider creating an account and editing some more :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. Multiple sources state the amount of primary oocytes at 500,000 to 1,000,000 and the size as 25micrometres. I'm not sure about your math but it seems you've laid out all the oocytes end on end, forgetting about the three dimensional nature of the ovaries. 25μm diameter = 15,625μm3 per oocyte. How big are the ovaries in micrometers? Let's take 3cm as the diameter of each ovary - ie 30 x 10^3μm; ie 27,000 x 10^9μm3. So you can see even a million primary follicles can fit in an ovary. I hope that clarifies this for you, IP. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Many of these articles were in great need of attention. Have just been edited by another user with several issues:

• large chunks of text inserted as a 'system overview' that, for the most part, duplicates article content
• chunks of text arbitrarily deleted
• items such as infoboxes and images moved

Would definitely benefit from the attention of anatomy editors. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Could you be more specific towards which articles needs attention? JakobSteenberg (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The tensor vastus intermedius is a newly described muscle in the anterior thigh. It was published in Clinical Anatomy, March 2016. "A newly discovered muscle: The tensor of the vastus intermedius" Surprisingly, it was found in all specimens dissected by the authors... One interesting discussion here. If it were to be a normal structure rather than a variation, could we think of it as a fifth head of the quadriceps? Should the term quadriceps femoris become, i.e., quinticeps femoris? --Athikhun (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

There is technically already a fifth (depending on who you talk to) quad muscle already, Articularis_genus_musclem, but TVI does appear to actually be a true fifth. OverAverageJoe (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought the atricularis genus was a portion of the vastus intermedius and not an independent muscle? I'll have to look for them next time I dissect, even though I think it might be premature to start telling my students about the 6-headed thigh muscle. CFCF 💌 📧 11:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating! Cutting edge anatomy, that's what we're about here! I better make mention of this somewhere in the Quadriceps femoris article too... maybe in the history section (as a news/trivia piece). --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. On second though I might wait until this gets some coverage in some reliable secondary sources... [14] --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, I did not encounter any TVI during dissection. This is something to look into... -Athikhun (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi all

There is a currently a proposal to make the move above, which has not had a large number of responses so far. Please go to Talk:Anterior cochlear nucleus if you have any opinion on this matter. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Some images I've provided earlier One of the featured images I've uploaded An image showing the prevalnce of HIV/AIDS in the world as well as a cell infected by HIV. A image of the caloric reflex test

I've done a whole lot of work with images, from adding Sobotta's atlas of Anatomy to Wikipedia, working with X-rays, and contacting different organizations about errata concerning their images and uploading their works. I've also previously taken part in two rounds of IEGs for the Medical Translation Project. I want to tie these two together, focusing on getting images and videos out to a wider audience — both in English and in other Languages. Please take a look at the IEG I've drafted, all the details aren't finalized — but the focus is getting more image through collaborations guides on how to produce acquire images for Wikipedia!

If you feel this is worthwhile feel free to endorse or comment on the proposal — all your ideas are appreciated, and as the project isn't set in stone I will also respond to and criticism about what I plan on doing and what I plan on improving. Check it out here

Note: The page may see some substantial updating in the coming days

Best, CFCF 💌 📧 21:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments are needed on the following matter: Talk:Human penis#The penis is not homologous to the vagina; it is homologous to the clitoris. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Lying (position)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Aucassin (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

What happened to page view of esophagus particularly on 21/03/2013? There were 544,611 views in a single day. See the Pagaviews analysis Any idea? --Athikhun.suw (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

How strange. Usually when this happens it's the result of some bot malfunction somewhere over the interwebs... (as opposed to genuine readers) --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that the categorization template for this Wikiproject, {{WPAN}}, asks about a discipline (eg Category talk:Cranial sutures) but the "anatomical discipline" link given no longer points to an existing section of the project's page. Do you still categorize by discipline? Would somebody familiar with this Wikiproject sort out this issue? Jason Quinn (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I try to categorise our articles, but at the moment there are 6800+ left uncategorised. I have however had no involvement in setting it up and do not know what used to link where, so I can not help you any further than stating; yes, some of us still sort by category. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there an up-to-date list with all the disciplines that can be entered? At the very least we should have the link in the template point to something valid so that random editors can do it too. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy#Discipline. JakobSteenberg (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Took me a while to see the possible values. Now I see that there's some kind of browser bug happening to me. When I click on that link, it doesn't take me to the "Discipline" section but below it to the middle of the "Article assessment statistics" section. So my browser was skipping over it. Thanks. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem. JakobSteenberg (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

A little late to the conversation, but Jason Quinn just to highlight these aren't meant for Wikipedia categorisation but for categorisation within our Wikiproject, to make collaborations easier (eg if we have a gross anatomist or pathologist or embryologist who wants to come along and edit / provide images etc). --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Tom. I realize that. The whole thing is a misunderstanding brought about because of a browser bug causing Firefox to jump to a wrong section. Thanks though. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sex characteristics#WP:Redundant fork. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Is this a bot we would like to run on WP:AN; User:BU RoBOT/autoassess? I personally think we should opt-in. Let me know what you think. Kind regards. JakobSteenberg (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Great idea, but I would not be in favour of this project. We have a couple of users (me, CFCF, Iztwoz and yourself sometimes) who rate our articles and so I'd say if anything we're probably going to be the most accurate rating for most of our articles, as opposed to other projects which may be less up to date. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I tend to emphasize the quality of the sources in the article — not just length. I'm not convinced the autoassess-bot would do so. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it the bot does not use length to rate the articles. If we have an article in our project that have not received a quality rating by us but is a C, start or whatever according to another projectbanner placed on the talkpage (for us then it would most likely be WP:MED, WP:PHYSIO or WP:MCB) then the bot would simply copy that rating. ...but I just realised that we currently have 2 unrated articles so... it may not be very relevant for us. But if other related projects opt-in (you could consider this if you contribute to another project) then they could benefit from our high percentage of quality rated articles. JakobSteenberg (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Please look at Appendix (anatomy) § Vestigiality and my Talk page comment on it.--Thnidu (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion has been made to change the title of Jewish nose to Jewish nose stereotype. One participant, after thoroughly losing the argument went, in opinion of some, on selective forum shopping. Therefore I am reposting his invitation where I think Jewish history took part as well. - üser:Altenmann >t 20:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Cerebellum article is a candidate for publication in Wikiversity Journal of Medicine (Wikiversity draft located here). When published, the snapshot in Wikiversity will be easier for external sources to cite, and it will give clear credit to those who have contributed the most to creating the article. However, first it needs some amendment in regard to the issues found in by the peer reviewer, copied to here:

The article is very informational and is written in an encyclopedic voice. It is written at a scholarly level while still maintaining enough readability for lay readers. Though, I suggest a few changes (highlighted in the attached pdf). 1. While the article provides a comprehensive overview of the cerebellum in terms of its structure and functions, certain aspects of its anatomy are still lacking: - Information on blood supply should be added (superior cerebellar artery, anterior inferior cerebellar artery, and posterior inferior cerebellar artery), perhaps with illustrations. - Its connections to the brainstem (the three cerebellar peduncles) and tracks (e.g., cerebellothalamic tract) should be mentioned. 2. Information on cerebellar anomalies should also be added to section 'Clinical significance', e.g., Arnold-Chiari malformation, Dandy-Walker syndrome, etc. Other comments: 1. I notice some missing citations at several locations: - Page 1, 'Most of them derive from....., Purkinje cell receives two dramatically...., The basic concept of Marr-Albus..... - Page 5, last paragraph of section 1.2.1 Purkinje cell, The most popular concept of their function.... - Page 7, section 2 Function, last paragraph, Kenji Doya has argued...... - Page 9, second paragraph of section 2.3 Theories and computational methods, Perhaps the earliest "performance" theory... 2. Page 3, Figure: Microcircuitry of the cerebellum, abbreviation of CFC is lacking. 3. Page 7, section 1.2.5 Deep nuclei, use the word 'supply' instead of 'innervate'.

Also, User:Tony1 asked what "its" refers to for the sentence "This complex neural organization gives rise to a massive signal-processing capability, but almost all of its output passes through a set of small deep cerebellar nuclei lying in the interior of the cerebellum."

As this is among Wikipedia's featured articles, I think it is important to address these matters. Also, please give me a note if you think you think you've made substantial contributions to this article to have your name among the authors in the Wikiversity article. In that case, your real name should be used rather than your username.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

These issues have now been amended. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment at this discussion at RFD that boils down to the question of whether we should have redirects for the Greek-language anatomical terms. For example, should Hepar redirect to Liver or Enkephalos to Brain? Uanfala (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, what do you think about the diagram and it's description in #Studies on penis size? I'm not a native speaker – feel free to correct. I'm worry, it's not correct and nobody registers… ;-) --Gsälzbär (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This project's feedback would be appreciated in this discussion, as this could greatly (and positively) affect biological citations! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be the subject of an assignment over this next season. We should keep an eye on it (and improve, cite, and integrate it with existing articles if not done already). --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I redirected Anatomical variation to that page (previously a redirect to human body), however it may in fact be a more suitable title. Thoughts? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. That page seems to deal with social elements of variation too, so I think it would he better for anatomical variation to point there. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Danger space seems to also be another target for students. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Was and still is lacking in very basic anatomical information. Please help me to improve it! --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Female ejaculation#Image restored about whether or not to use a real-life image depicting female ejaculation. I have concerns because the existence of female ejaculation is heavily debated among scholars and people have been known to photoshop photographs to look like female ejaculation, especially in the pornography media. Some pornography actresses have faked female ejaculation onscreen. As this 2013 Cosmopolitan source states, "Porn has encouraged men to believe that when they've truly rocked a woman's body, it starts doing an impression of the Bellagio Fountain in the second-to-last scene of Ocean's Eleven." In that same source, sex therapist Ian Kerner states, "Involuntary squirting is the Loch Ness Monster of sex. In other words, an unverifiable legend." The literature commonly attributes the type of "gushing" seen in the debated photograph to the bladder (meaning urine or mostly urine, or closer to urine to than to female ejaculate). Even Kerner, in the Cosmopolitan source, categorizes gushing as "closer to pee than it is to female ejaculate." And a pornography actress in the source states that "the extreme version of squirting — is often smoke and mirrors." She believes "squirting" is real, but thinks that it's rare and difficult to achieve. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, everyone.

Wikimedia Sweden recently finished an image project. The goal has been to produce photos of volunteer models illustrating underwear and human bodies that are not stereotypically while, male, slim, etc. I got the idea for the project after I noticed the almost complete lack of non-sexist imagery of women's bodies at Commons. I was project coordinator during the initial phases and Sara Mörtsell at Wikimedia Sweden has been the project manager. Ina Bäckström handled media coordination in the startup phase and User:Josve05a has assisted with technical know-how on Commons. The project was funded as part of a grant from the Swedish Agency for Youth and Civil Society. We hired Tomas Gunnarsson, a well known feminist and gender rights activist in Sweden, as our photographer. Everyone of us participated with input or selection of models.

The images that have come out of the project can be found in the Commons category Category:Uploaded via Campaign:Normprojekt. We tried our best to find as varied models as possible in terms of gender identity, race, age and body type. In the linked category there are 125 photos of six models of various colors, ages and shapes. All of them are volunteers that have agreed to the terms and conditions involved in having photos of themselves published under a free license.

Everyone who's been active in the project is hoping these images can be used to diversify our illustrations of human bodies on Wikipedia. I've already included a few of the images in articles like foot, fist and axilla. Please feel free to spread them wherever you feel they are relevant.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

That is fantastic! We have needed high-quality anatomical images for a long time. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Finally got around to having a look. A lot of scantily clad shots of people and genitalia as usual for wikicommons, but also some useful anatomical images. Have added to our anatomical article for Back and Shoulder. Many thanks to the volunteers and artists. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

This is amazing! As an MtF myself, I can easily see the benefit of this, to help educate the world about the diversity that is not the strict, overly-simplistic pigeon-hole boxes/labels they may have learned in childhood. Thank you for sharing that info about the project and knowledge of the images from the Commons! PolymathGirl (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

A proposal that merits discussion here: (Prompted by this Talk:Columnar_epithelial_cell#reqmovetag, proposed by Iztwoz who has continued his/her tireless efforts to keep the anatomy space tidy!)

Should our tiny articles about different types of epithelium (simple squamous, simple columnar, ...) be moved to a single page?

The benefits of moving to a list page (eg. List of epithelial types, or even Epithelium#Types) are:

• More contextual information for readers
• Easier for readers to navigate
• Easier to maintain and edit

Downsides - I support reducing the potential for expansion?

• Could become too information-dense/overwhelming for some users to navigate (strikethrough and edit added by PolymathGirl (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC))

Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I support this merge, there is a lot of duplication between these pages. benrusholme (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• While this is not a field of expertise/much familiarity of mine, perusing through those different pages and seeing how short they are, I can see the benefit in it. My only concern would be the way/degree it's condensed (i.e. how many articles being condensed into one). To merge it all into the main page of Epithelium (as it appears Iztwoz was aiming for in Talk:Columnar_epithelial_cell) I think would cause issues with the Usability/Readability points explained in Wikipedia:Article size of being too dense/"information overload" to some users, but I think to merge to the five main groups listed in the Template:Epithelia series (1. Squamous, 2. Columnar, 3. Cuboidal, 4. Specialized, 5. Other) would be wise. Especially to Tom (LT)'s points about providing more contextual information for readers. PolymathGirl (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Bush6984 good point - it may be too dense if merged there. What about to a second page, something like Types of epithelia? --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Tom (LT) That could work, with short summary blurbs for each of the general types and a "Main Page: (xyz) Epithelial Cell" link in each of the body-sections. Personally I wasn't necessarily thinking of having the Types of epithelia page itself, so much as just letting the side/Infobox template and footer/Navbox template "do all the work," since they serve as very clear and concise "outlines"/"flow-charts" for breaking down the types. PolymathGirl (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Have just separated out a section Cell types heading an existing table. Would be relatively straightforward to merge proposed pages there ? --Iztwoz (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 10 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I've added two new drives - I will be working on the set of articles relating to Cranial nerves and those related to the Electrical conduction system of the heart. I welcome collaboration! --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The Hippocampus article was peer reviewed by a neuroscientist recently, discovering several issues: Wikiversity:The Hippocampus#Peer review comments
The main issue that needs to be addressed is the disconnect between hippocampal involvement in declarative memory versus spatial navigation, preferably by mentioning functional imaging studies. The peer reviewer has referred to the following works:

• Schiller, D.; Eichenbaum, H.; Buffalo, E. A.; Davachi, L.; Foster, D. J.; Leutgeb, S.; Ranganath, C. (2015). "Memory and Space: Towards an Understanding of the Cognitive Map". Journal of Neuroscience. 35 (41): 13904–13911. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2618-15.2015. ISSN 0270-6474.
• Buzsáki, György; Moser, Edvard I (2013). "Memory, navigation and theta rhythm in the hippocampal-entorhinal system". Nature Neuroscience. 16 (2): 130–138. doi:10.1038/nn.3304. ISSN 1097-6256.

I appreciate any help with this matter. After such an amendment, the article can be published in WikiJournal of Medicine, which is an open-access journal with no publication charges of any kind. The article will then be given standard citation formats and DOI codes so that it can be cited by external works. If you help out, you can be displayed among the main authors of the publication in WikiJournal of Medicine if you want, but you then need to agree and sign the "Submission letter", and you should also write your real name. In any case, contributors will be attributed by a link to the article history of Hippocampus. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions.

Cheers,

Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Editor-in-chief, WikiJournal of Medicine