Talk:Anatomical terminology

Anatomy: Meta Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to The field of anatomy.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 February 2021 and 28 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jessica.jfrancis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of this article

This article originated here: User:CFCF/sandbox/Anatomical terminology. Its history can be found there. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human anatomical terms redirects here

Human anatomical terms redirects here, to see older discussion see Talk:Human anatomical terms -- CFCF (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Anatomical terms of motion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have proposed this merge because:

This article duplicates all content that is provided on the other article
It would be better to have a single article that would have enhanced readership with a greater chance of improvement rather than a small array of low-quality other articles.

--LT910001 (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should stay. Will try an expansion to justify this tomorrow, need to get some sleep now. CFCF (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is very much a draft, but here is a suggestion, see the glenohumeral joint: User:CFCF/sandbox/Anatomical terms of motion. This would make the article behave more like a list, filling that function better, without intruding into this article. -- CFCF (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been reading up on different types of motions and Clinical Kinesiology and Anatomy by L. Lippert seems to be a good source. It speaks of motions in different ways such as linear, rectilinear, curvilinear and angular. -- CFCF (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not too good at kinesiology and biomechanics, but I'll give it a shot. CFCF (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did some work, I think it's going to need more, but I think this should be the article people turn to for an entry level explanation, while the main article is more of a list and takes into account kinesiology as well. Please comment or help expand on the work I did over on that page. CFCF (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marking this discussion as closed. There was no consensus for the change, and Anatomical terms of motion is now a featured list. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources

For general overview:

Kachlik, D.; Baca, V.; Bozdechova, I.; Cech, P.; Musil, V. (2008). "Anatomical terminology and nomenclature: Past, present and highlights". Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy. 30 (6): 459–466. doi:10.1007/s00276-008-0357-y. PMID 18488135.
o&Rsquo;Rahilly, R. (1989). "Anatomical Terminology, then and Now". Cells Tissues Organs. 134 (4): 291–300. doi:10.1159/000146705.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Sakai, T. (2007). "Historical evolution of anatomical terminology from ancient to modern". Anatomical Science International. 82 (2): 65–81. doi:10.1111/j.1447-073X.2007.00180.x. PMID 17585563.
Terminologia anatomica: international anatomical terminology and Terminologia Histologica: International Terms for Human Cytology and Histology [1]

Proposed merge with Anatomical landmark

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article Anatomical landmark, as presently written doesn't warrant article status. "Anatomical landmark" is a vague, indefinite term that can describe points of reference in any organ system, not just gross external regions. There is no sense in having a separate article with a title that basically means "anatomical parts in an area of interest". A selection of Google Scholar results for "Anatomical landmark" yields "Antomical landmarks of": radical prostatecomy, femoral nerve block, rhomboid fossa, anterior fontanelle ultrasonography, and sacrospinous colpopexy operations performed for vaginal vault prolapse. A term with such broad usage is hardly worth creating a separate article for. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possible, but in that case I belive we need an article at List of anatomical landmarks CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably entail making a list of all nameable parts of the human body, and would not really help define what an anatomic landmark is. A reader interested in every nameable part might start with Glossary of anatomy or Category:Human anatomy. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we should merge these two articles, 'landmark' is a nebulous quantity that is hard to define and I feel unlikely to be expanded in the future. --LT910001 (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed this merge. --LT910001 (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge with Supine position

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A merge has been proposed with Supine position (not by me).--LT910001 (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think that this article has social and cultural, as well as medical implications, and couldn't be neatly merged into this article. --LT910001 (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ping to CFCF who may have proposed this merge.
Oppose. Resting positions might be mentioned on this page, but I don't think it warrants a merge.--Animalparty-- (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With no consensus for the merge, I'm removing the merge tags and closing this discussion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hyperflexion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This term redirects here, but there's no mention of it in the article. I'm not convinced we should redirect arbitrary anatomical terminology here - we should be directing the user to Wiktionary instead. Philipwhiuk (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking this up Philipwhiuk. The link's been redirected to the appropriate article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge with International morphological terminology

Article appears to directly relate to anatomical terminology, and could be easily represented in a #History or #Society and culture or other section Tom (LT) (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A small detail

Please see the discussion at File talk:Anatomical position.jpg, where I ask whether the illustration correctly depicts the penis, consonant with the terms 'dorsal' and 'anterior'. yoyo (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a small detail, it's just cold in here! But seriously, yes, you're right, it should be depicted as erect, since that corresponds to the anatomical structure names (e.g. dorsal vein). HCA (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need information - Does detached retina require surfgery?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:206:8102:6000:4511:BA2D:8204:2B9E (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ref name duplicate

The ref 1 and ref 11 are seems same --DrSorrowMD (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]