User talk:CFCF/sandbox/Anatomical terminology
Hi CFCF! I thought I'd localise the discussion here. I feel that we should have one article that is intended to have the scope 'introduction to anatomical terminology' designed for common terms for laypeople. I also feel that this isn't the right article for 'Musculo skeletal interaction', which confused me when I saw it in the original. What'd be your thoughts?--LT910001 (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thats exactly what I've been thinking. The part about muscles was the one I added last, and I do think the article should explain the concept of agonist and antagonist as well as insertion and origin and fascias. It's fully possible to compound that entire bit down to something in the style of:
Error: no page names specified (help). Muscle action that moves the axial skeleton work over a joint with an origin and insertion of the muscle on respective side. The insertion is on the bone deemed to move towards the origin during muscle contraction. Muscles are often present that engage in several actions of the joint; able to perform for example both flexion and extension of the forearm as in the biceps and triceps respectively. This is not only to be able to revert actions of muscles, but also brings on stability of the actions though muscle coactivation. The muscle performing an action is the agonist, while the muscle which contraction brings about an opposite action is the antagonist. For example a extension of the lower arm is performed by the triceps as the agonist and the biceps as the antagonist (which contraction will perform flexion over the same joint). Muscles that work together to perform the same action are called synergists. In the above example synergists to the biceps are the brachioradialis and the brachialis muscle.
Grouping muscles after anatomical strucute
[edit]
- The text is still a viable alternative to another article, so if you want to remove it, simply quote it out and we can move it later. CFCF (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Realized that was quite ok, but needs to be rewritten, so I added it preliminarily. Also quoted out the other parts of the article, don't want to delete it yet, trying to find somewhere to move it. -- CFCF (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, that looks much better. I hate trimming content, but I feel I may trim a significant amount of content here, as a lot of it explains what the things themselves are, rather than the terminology. --LT910001 (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Would be quite happy to integrate the content from Anatomical terms of motion here, as I think the explanation there does a better job than here. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Go for it, we can polish down that text afterwards. You're right, but the images from here are superior. I will be looking at extending that article. CFCF (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hello! Yes. I think we should rename that to "list of anatomical terms of motion" or even merge both into "list of anatomical terms", making a list-type article I feel will help define the scope. --LT910001 (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- The biggest problem there is that Anatomical terms of location also has quite alot of information on zootomy. To have that article as a list would require an expansion of a Zootomical terminology, which doesn't even exist, and I don't have the expertise to do anything there. I think it would suffice to make the articles more general like lists, but not necessarily into lists. CFCF (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hello! Yes. I think we should rename that to "list of anatomical terms of motion" or even merge both into "list of anatomical terms", making a list-type article I feel will help define the scope. --LT910001 (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Go for it, we can polish down that text afterwards. You're right, but the images from here are superior. I will be looking at extending that article. CFCF (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Would be quite happy to integrate the content from Anatomical terms of motion here, as I think the explanation there does a better job than here. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, that looks much better. I hate trimming content, but I feel I may trim a significant amount of content here, as a lot of it explains what the things themselves are, rather than the terminology. --LT910001 (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Realized that was quite ok, but needs to be rewritten, so I added it preliminarily. Also quoted out the other parts of the article, don't want to delete it yet, trying to find somewhere to move it. -- CFCF (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- On the other hand List of human anatomical regions is a good article to create, because all that needs to be done is copy the list from here and make a list of deprecated regions such as those from the 1933 image at the bottom of the article. CFCF (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it's really starting to near ready for exposure. There are a few edits needing to be done to the joint section and to the section on regions before its good to go. -- CFCF (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think its finished enough to be moved out to Anatomical terminology now. I will do this tonight, but I'd be happy for some feed-back first. CFCF (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
：：Great! Now we can start integrating this with the other articles. Will de-watchlist this, and move discussion to the other pages. --LT910001 (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)