Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Moves

Some article titles have been proposed to be moved to better standardise our muscle titles:

Please contribute and / or watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Article alerts if you'd like to see if there are any future move proposals. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This may also give us the opportunity to clarify how muscle articles should be named in WP:MEDMOS. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Article Naming - Muscles to explore this. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:FASA for Menstrual cycle

Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Menstrual cycle/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of forensic anthropology in Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Would one of the participants here be willing to check the accuracy of this change? This added a statement that Numerous studies have shown that cranial variation has a low correlation with race, and rather that cranial variation was strongly correlated with climate variables. I am not especially knowledgeable about forensic anthropology, but several papers on this subject that I've looked at (e.g. [1] [2] [3]) seem to contradict this, so I thought it might be useful for someone who knows more about the subject to look at it. - LaetusStudiis (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi LaetusStudiis! I wouldn't claim to be an expert either, although I do notice a few things.
Firstly, Brace (1993) does not have a full citation - DOI is 10.1002/ajpa.1330360603 if you would like to include this. The results are fairly complex. It is true that the study differentiates between adaptive and non-adaptive cranial traits, but gives only its own limited evidence to support this (see page 4 of the paper) - this makes it pure primary research. Here it is worth noting page 18 onwards that explains this. To summarise, some skull features can be used to give an idea of geographic location, whilst others can give an idea of racial group. The statement in the article might overemphasise the role of environmental factors, but I don't know enough about this to say for sure.
Secondly, the commentary on FORDISC is misleading, as the issue with reliability is with the small data sets that the software uses and not with the software - actually looking at the results of the study, it shows that the software performs very well on skeletons it can match to a known data set, as has been shown in the original studies. This may be why the AAPA didn't recommend discontinuing the software altogether. In short, FORDISCs reliability for archaeologists doesn't necessarily tell us much about whether skull shape in influenced by racial group, as the software may not be sensitive or powerful enough to do this for every racial group.
Despite my inexperience in this field, it seems that the results of some of these studies are slightly overexaggerated, particularly Brace (1993) that is primary research. I hope this is helpful! Bibeyjj (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Circulatory system

I created a section[4] about defining the circulatory system at Talk:Circulatory system. If any member here thinks they can be helpful on the topic, please comment there. GBFEE (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Article moves

I notice that the fairly inexperienced user Menokin (talk) performed the following moves earlier today:

They also edited Template:Muscles of the lower limb based on this. This was done without talk page or move discussion. Good edit summaries were given. However, the justification based on preferred Terminologia Anatomica terminology is reasonable. I personally think that these moves are probably justified. What do you think? Bibeyjj (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

For now, I have also assessed the articles accordingly (articles that have just been made redirects have been classified as such under Template:WikiProject Anatomy). I'd be happy to revert this if the articles are moved back. Bibeyjj (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

how to get a skull image for use on WP

Hi, how do I get hold of an image of the skull that I can modify and use in an article? I need a posterolateral view of the skull. I had a look on commons and there are lots of images but they all have been modified in some way with things marked in red, etc. I need a "plain" one, so I can mark my own stuff. If you open many of those images, it says they were created with Anatomography. I then spent more than an hour trying to get Anatomography to achieve the simple task of showing me a skull, and didn't get anywhere. So... how do I get hold of a posterolateral view of the skull I can use? Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

H DrVogel - try searching wikipedia commons for a base image ([[5]]). Tom (LT) (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Tom (LT): Hi, thanks for answering. That's one of the first things I did, but I didn't find exactly what I needed. Something like this one but without the stuff marked in red would be ideal. I wasn't able to find a "base" version of anything like this. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
You could try asking at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop - I've found the editors there very helpful. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I rendered an image, let me know if it is useful or if you want it different in any way. --WS (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Human and non-human osteology

I think that there should be separate articles on bones in vertebrate anatomy in general and in humans specifically. The current article structure, where most articles on bones present in humans are primarily about the bone in human anatomy, with only brief mention of the bone in other vertebrates, is not conducive to a reader interested in the bone for nonmedical reasons getting a full understanding of the bone. However, restructuring the articles to be about the bone in general may cause problems for the reader who is interested in reading about the bone for medical reasons. I think the solution is to have two articles for each bone, one about the bone in vertebrate anatomy in general, and the other about the bone in humans specifically. I'm not sure which article should be considered the primary topic, though: should it be, for example, "Maxilla in non-human vertebrates" and "Maxilla", or should it be "Maxilla" and "Maxilla in human anatomy"? I'm also putting this discussion up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal Anatomy. Thoughts? Ornithopsis (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned anatomy stubs

Hello, like a magpie bringing shiny things, I have a pair of orphaned anatomical stubs I was hoping for some assistance with: Nucleus ventralis posterior lateralis pars oralis and Subscapular aponeurosis. (They are unrelated to one another but happen to be in my backlog radar). I was wondering if they should remain standalone or if I could merge them somewhere? And if they should remain on their own, where might I link each one from to de-orphan them? Cheers and thank you! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi PMC! VPLo could be merged to Ventral posterolateral nucleus, although there are definitely a number of citable sources available generally that show notability of the VPLo for a standalone article. The same cannot be said for Subscapular aponeurosis, for which I can find no significant references (generally only important aponeuroses have their own articles [6]) - Subscapular aponeurosis could be merged to Subscapularis muscle. All the best! Bibeyjj (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Bibeyjj - I've redirected the aponeurosis stub without merging as it was sort of already mentioned at the muscle article you linked. I made the VPLo a see-also at Ventral posterolateral nucleus, because I wasn't entirely confident about merging it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

2019 Edition of Terminologia Anatomica

For those interested, there is an ongoing discussion about anatomy article naming and topic coverage on the WikiProject Medicine talk page. The latest edition of Terminologia Anatomica is 2019, which can be found here. All the best! Bibeyjj (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Anatomical Terms Instead of Eponyms

Hi, I tried to edit some of the Wikipedia articles on various anatomical structures to decrease their focus on outdated eponyms (especially those related to female reproductive anatomy: e.g., Fallopian tubes = uterine tubes, Bartholin's gland = greater vestibular gland, Skene's gland = lesser vestibular gland, etc.); however, my changes were reverted and I was directed here. Speaking as someone with a PhD in anatomy, I (and most of my colleagues) believe that the anatomical names of these structures are the most clear and accurate and should, therefore, be the primarily used/cited terms. This should be a strong enough argument for this change without even getting into the anti-patriarchal and anti-colonial reasons for using the anatomical terms. Since Wikipedia is the go-to source of information for the general public, it is important for this resource to stay up-to-date with changes in accepted and inclusive terminology. Note, I am not trying to scrub the eponyms from the pages entirely, just to have the proper anatomical term be the first introduced and most used in each article. The eponym should only be used in the context of "also known as" or when explaining the history of the structure's discovery/first description. Please let me know if there is a more appropriate place to post this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmcwatt (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what is said in reliable sources, not the personal opinions of expert Wikipedia editors. Anyone can claim that their personal opinion is an expert judgment, so reliable sources provide objectivity. I personally agree with you about this issue, but Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a trend setter; it's supposed to reflect what is already agreed upon in the scholarly literature. My interest in anatomy is largely centered on dinosaur bones, though, so I can't speak to what the current consensus in scholarly literature is. You need to provide sources showing that the terms you want to use are indeed favored by the current scholarly literature.
That said, I would like to remind others that redirects exist, so changing the title of a page does not necessarily make it harder to find. As such, if there's evidence that there is a widespread view in the reliable literature that a different term is preferable, we don't have to keep the title just because it'd be the first thing a layperson would search for. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Iztwoz and Zefr challenged this user's edits. I did too. Quoting Iztwoz at the fallopian tube page, "Fallopian is far more commonly used Google hits 8 million plus, vs 599k for uterine. You would need to suggest change on talk page - it failed in the past."[7] So 'tis a matter of recognizability. Also, what's most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources. If Seanmcwatt wants to remove or push eponyms to the side, getting the articles renamed by proving that the eponyms have been superseded in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources should be done first. Leading with the non-eponyms while the article titles rest at the eponyms isn't a good look. Other eponym discussions from this page:[8]. GBFEE (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with GBFEE's comments and suggest to Seanmcwatt that the first solution to changing an article's main eponym or title is to post a talk page topic and receive feedback from other editors. If there is consensus, then WP:MOVE applies, and an editor can proceed. While it's valuable to have the expertise of an editor like Seanmcwatt, the changes made were abrupt and undiscussed, and therefore contrary to Wikipedia's process of collaboration and consensus. Zefr (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with what has been said already, and with the specific reverts that occurred in response to Seanmcwatt's edits. As already mentioned, Wikipedia has always prioritised the use of the common name of a subject, as this improves overall access to the article. Referring to the specific examples with my experience as a medical student, with the exception of "Fallopian tube" (where I have increasingly heard the term "uterine tube" used in preference), I have always used and heard "Bartholin's gland", "Skene's gland", and "Gartner's duct". Bibeyjj (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and suggestions on how to move forward! Your criticisms are all fair -- I did not provide adequate sources to support my changes. However, the supporting literature exists in abundance... most notably in the terminologica anatomica, which is the highest authority on this matter[1]. Regarding the three structures we have been discussing (there are many more), whenever eponyms are used in the following texts (if they are used at all), the anatomical terms precede them. This is generally true for all eponyms used in these resources, which are recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources that are some of the most widely used in the field. Of note, paraurethral gland was used more frequently than lesser vestibular gland (although, I think it makes more sense to use lesser in cases such as this, where greater is used to imply the existence of another similar structure of different size), but no resource in this list introduced this structure by the eponymous, Skene's gland. Individual experience or expertise aside, this compels me to believe that the anatomical term should precede the eponymous term on widely available sources of information like Wikipedia. Please see the below sources:

Embryology:
Moore, K. L., Persaud, T. V. N., & Torchia, M. G. (2020). The developing human : clinically oriented embryology (Eleventh). Elsevier.[2] Uterine tube, greater vestibular gland, paraurethral gland
Sadler, T. W. (2019). Langman's medical embryology (Fourteenth). Wolters Kluwer.[3] Uterine tube (greater and lesser vestibular glands not found)
Schoenwolf, G. C., Bleyl, S. B., Brauer, P. R., Francis-West, P. H., & Larsen, W. J. (2021). Larsen's human embryology (Sixth). Elsevier.[4] Uterine tube, greater vestibular gland, paraurethral gland
Anatomy:
Drake, R. L., Vogl, W., & Mitchell, A. W. M. (2021). Gray's atlas of anatomy (Third). Elsevier.[5] Uterine tube, greater vestibular gland, paraurethral gland
Moore, K. L., Agur, A. M. R., & Dalley, A. F. (2018). Clinically oriented anatomy (Eighth edition. International). Wolters Kluwer.[6] Uterine tube, greater vestibular gland, lesser vestibular gland
Agur, A. M. R., & Dalley, A. F. (2021). Grant's atlas of anatomy (Edition 15). Wolters Kluwer.[7] Uterine tube and greater vestibular gland (lesser vestibular gland not found)
Moore, K. L., Agur, A. M. R., & Dalley, A. F. (2011). Essential clinical anatomy (4th ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.[8] Uterine tube and greater vestibular gland (lesser vestibular gland not found)
Rohen, J. W., Yokochi, C., & Lütjen-Drecoll Elke. (2016). Anatomy : a photographic atlas (Eighth). Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.[9] Uterine tube and greater vestibular gland (lesser vestibular gland not found)
Netter, F. H., & Machado, C. A. G. (2023). Netter atlas of human anatomy : classic regional approach. (P. E. Neumann, R. S. Tubbs, J. K. Brueckner, M. J. Gdowski, V. T. Lyons, P. J. Ward, B. Benninger, & T. M. Hoagland, Eds.) (Eighth, Ser. [netter basic science]). Elsevier.[10] Uterine tube, greater vestibular gland, paraurethral gland
Voll, M. M., Wesker, K., & Schünke Michael. (2016). Atlas of anatomy. (A. M. Gilroy & B. R. MacPherson, Eds.) (Third). Thieme.[11] Uterine tube, greater vestibular gland, lesser vestibular gland
Gilroy, A. M., Voll, M. M., & Wesker, K. (2017). Anatomy : an essential textbook (Second, Ser. Thieme's illustrated review series). Thieme Medical Publishers.[12] Uterine tube, greater vestibular gland, lesser vestibular gland
Literature:
FIPAT. Terminologia Anatomica. 2nd ed. FIPAT.library.dal.ca. Federative International Programme for Anatomical Terminology, 2019.[13] Tuba uterina (uterine tube), glandula vestibularis major(greater vestibular gland), glandulae vestibulares minores (lesser vestibular gland) -- other names and eponyms are given as "related terms"
McNulty MA, Wisner RL, Meyer AJ. NOMENs land: The place of eponyms in the anatomy classroom. Anat Sci Educ. 2021 Nov;14(6):847-852.[14] Recent peer-reviewed literature against eponyms
Robert Buttner, Jessica Lee and Mike Cadogan (2021) De-eponymising anatomical terminology.[15] Interesting read on eponyms (see the many sources listed for more information)
Leah Kaminsky (2018) From fallopian tubes to the Pouch of Douglas, women’s body parts have been named by – and after – men. But the masculine language of medicine doesn’t end there. Does it matter? [16] Article addressing naming of female anatomy after men

So, as you can see, this is not an attempt pushing Wikipedia to be a 'trend-setter', but merely to catch it up to what is current accepted practice (and has been for several years). I recognize that changing the terms in the text while leaving the titles as eponyms was abrupt and misaligned with Wikipedia's process, though I am new to this game and was not aware of that process -- apologies! However, as mentioned previously, I hope the above justifies a move to re-title the articles on the Fallopian tube, Bartholin's gland, and Skene's gland (+ other similar articles to come) and update the naming of the uterine tubes, greater vestibular glands, and lesser vestibular/paraurethral glands within the text of other articles in which they appear. If this were be the case, the recognizability or common name status of the eponymous terms, to me, is irrelevant, as users would be redirected to pages with the most accurate naming. If anything, it will help to finally give the public to access to information that is relevant, up to date, and accepted in the field, which Wikipedia has thus far failed to do in these cases. I hope you agree and we can move on this.

Thank you! -- SM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmcwatt (talk • contribs) 03:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I like that you say "resources" like me. Nothing strange about that at all. Not one bit. Sameness helps build comradery.
Now, about the resources you listed. None of them show that the eponyms have been superseded. Your collection shows that you listed recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources that don't put eponyms first or don't use them. Do you doubt that editors can create a collection of recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources that list the eponyms first (especially from the 2011-2018 time span, which is one of the time spans in your post) or use only them? You'd be better off compiling a list of recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources that say that the eponyms have been superseded. Those like the McNulty resource you cited, but better. And they should be better than primary resources. Decisions based on synth should be avoided. I hope you agree and we can see you produce concrete evidence supporting your argument of "outdated." Thank you! GBFEE (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Late to the page! Have just replied on editor's talk page...pretty much same as already voiced here.--Iztwoz (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
As an educator, I look at pretty much everything as a 'learning resource'. Not sure where that began... maybe it's a Canadian thing!
Thank you for your response. I understand and agree with your point about synthesis; however, my goal is not to demonstrate that eponyms have been superseded, so much as it is to show that they were never the proper or common terminology to begin with, and are not universally recognized or consistent across the globe[17][18] (remembering that Wikipedia does exist on the worldwide web). The only reference that should be required to back that up is the Terminologia Anatomica[19], which is essentially THE dictionary of anatomy and only lists eponyms as "related terms" to the more accurate, descriptive, and universally recognized anatomical terminology. However, if Google search term prevalence is the stick by which Wikipedia has chosen to measure 'truth', then it's a much more difficult task...
Aside from a paper by Becker et al. (2021) examining the sharp decline in eponym use in neurology in recent years[20], there isn't much existing literature to demonstrate that the prevalence of other anatomical eponyms is changing. Though, I'd imagine that this will be evolving as the old debate[21] is currently being rekindled... But, there is certainly a notable wave of recent literature arguing that it should change, and many are actively working to make that happen[22][23][24][25][26]. There is also an emerging discussion on appropriate and inclusive terminology specific to pelvic anatomy[27][28][29]. Even those who are less radically against eponyms and wish to keep them in their teaching see them less as a standard naming approach and more as an entry-point into discussions on bioethics[30], as useful shorthand for medical practitioners[31] (which the average Wikipedia user is not), or for other lessons that are not directly related to anatomical structure, like teaching medical history and culture[32] (which is often inaccurate anyway[33]). These approaches align with modern efforts do decolonize the anatomy classroom and increase accessibility of information by using appropriate language/terminology and discussing the historical context of the subject matter[34], which is a priority recently stated by our top academic society[35][36]. I'm not sure what you mean by "better" than the McNulty et al. (2021) paper -- that team includes some of the top researchers and educators currently active in the field, and the manuscript was published in the top anatomy education journal in the world -- but I hope these other papers help to bolster the argument.
Again, if the main criterium for determining 'truth' at Wikipedia is the number of mentions on Google (which would be scary!), then I'm not keen to waste more of my time or energy trying to argue otherwise. Though, I'd posit that far fewer people would be Googling the structures to figure out what they are (i.e., out of confusion) if the true, more descriptive anatomical names were used, thus decreasing hits on eponyms... As the go-to place for publicly available information, I'd hope Wikipedia is open to that idea.
All the best! Seanmcwatt (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
All the best! GBFEE (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://ta2viewer.openanatomy.org/
  2. ^ Moore, K. L., Persaud, T. V. N., & Torchia, M. G. (2020). The developing human : clinically oriented embryology (Eleventh). Elsevier.
  3. ^ Sadler, T. W. (2019). Langman's medical embryology (Fourteenth). Wolters Kluwer.
  4. ^ Schoenwolf, G. C., Bleyl, S. B., Brauer, P. R., Francis-West, P. H., & Larsen, W. J. (2021). Larsen's human embryology (Sixth). Elsevier.
  5. ^ Drake, R. L., Vogl, W., & Mitchell, A. W. M. (2021). Gray's atlas of anatomy (Third). Elsevier.
  6. ^ Moore, K. L., Agur, A. M. R., & Dalley, A. F. (2018). Clinically oriented anatomy (Eighth edition. International). Wolters Kluwer.
  7. ^ Agur, A. M. R., & Dalley, A. F. (2021). Grant's atlas of anatomy (Edition 15). Wolters Kluwer.
  8. ^ Moore, K. L., Agur, A. M. R., & Dalley, A. F. (2011). Essential clinical anatomy (4th ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  9. ^ Rohen, J. W., Yokochi, C., & Lütjen-Drecoll Elke. (2016). Anatomy : a photographic atlas (Eighth). Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  10. ^ Netter, F. H., & Machado, C. A. G. (2023). Netter atlas of human anatomy : classic regional approach. (P. E. Neumann, R. S. Tubbs, J. K. Brueckner, M. J. Gdowski, V. T. Lyons, P.
    J. Ward, B. Benninger, & T. M. Hoagland, Eds.) (Eighth, Ser. [netter basic science]). Elsevier.
  11. ^ Voll, M. M., Wesker, K., & Schünke Michael. (2016). Atlas of anatomy. (A. M. Gilroy & B. R. MacPherson, Eds.) (Third). Thieme.
  12. ^ Gilroy, A. M., Voll, M. M., & Wesker, K. (2017). Anatomy : an essential textbook (Second, Ser. Thieme's illustrated review series). Thieme Medical Publishers.
  13. ^ https://ta2viewer.openanatomy.org/
  14. ^ https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2108
  15. ^ https://litfl.com/de-eponymising-anatomical-terminology/
  16. ^ https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180531-how-womens-body-parts-have-been-named-after-men
  17. ^ https://www.jospt.org/doi/10.2519/jospt.2004.0107
  18. ^ https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39308.342639.AD
  19. ^ https://ta2viewer.openanatomy.org/
  20. ^ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.106367
  21. ^ https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22409
  22. ^ https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.b.20121
  23. ^ https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2108
  24. ^ https://journals.lww.com/em-news/fulltext/2020/10000/news__de_eponymizing_anatomical_terminology.6.aspx?casa_token=whOQdbsP_J4AAAAA:M-xr6fu73EJJZI0mx7NpWjhY-5gX2oXAsAYaOn-akThgPImceeBiPIZHHevGvUAAfAwfGbTqI2K_3k-PUtgSGHiEmSE
  25. ^ https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22407
  26. ^ https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22439
  27. ^ https://cdmcd.co/6Z9dqP
  28. ^ https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24859
  29. ^ https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24862
  30. ^ https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2123
  31. ^ https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2115
  32. ^ https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22426
  33. ^ https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2108
  34. ^ https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24855
  35. ^ https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24903
  36. ^ https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24901

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Regulation of gastric function#Requested move 8 May 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Regulation of gastric function#Requested move 8 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Favonian (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Forebrain

If somebody's looking for article that desperately needs improving, Forebrain would be a good place to look. It's clearly an important topic, but the current article (which hasn't improved much in 15 years) is entirely unsourced and barely more than a stub. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Stroke volume article

I created a discussion[9] at Talk:Stroke volume about whether "The stroke volumes for each ventricle are generally equal, both being approximately 70 mL in a healthy 70-kg man." and corresponding text should be changed to "The stroke volumes for each ventricle are generally equal, both being approximately 70 mL in a healthy 70-kg person." in the stroke volume article for gender neutrality. I've also provided a few resources in the discussion. I started the discussion after an editor objected to the sentence being sex-specific. The discussion has now moved into the topic of including people of multiple gender identities and intersex people. If any member here thinks they can be helpful on the topic, please comment there. GBFEE (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

About importance

Fascial compartments of arm page is now rated as mid-class importance, but now anterior and posterior compartment is merged into that and both were high-class importance. I think fascial compartments of arm should be rated in high-class importance article, and want to know if there is any other opinion. --LR0725 (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi LR0725! I would agree with rating this article as high importance - as the major distinction of where muscles are located in the arm and what their general function is, this is probably worth the rating. Bibeyjj (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Bibeyjj. I checked that page about individual compartment is rated as high-class(e.g. anterior compartment of leg), and page about compartements of specific region is rated as mid-class(e.g. fascial compartments of leg). However, in this case, as individual compartment pages are merged to fascial compartments of arm page, this page should be rated as high-class. Thank you for your opinion. LR0725 (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Electrical conduction system of the heart#Requested move 15 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Electrical conduction system of the heart#Requested move 15 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Human-centric anatomy articles

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Biology articles and human focus and share your thoughts there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Lively talk at Foreskin

Does the human body actually come with functionless parts? I don't think so. Helpful Doctor's anatomical diagrams deleted for referring to 'function'. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Breast binding

Editors from this WikiProject are invited to weigh in at Talk:Breast binding#Requested move 2 November 2022, where it has been proposed to move the article to "chest binding". Crossroads -talk- 00:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Brachiocephalic artery

May I ask you something? Recently I edited brachiocephalic artery, and I am wondering how can I change start class of this page. --LR0725 (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi LR0725! Thank you for your work on the article. I've reassessed it up to C class - it is close to B class with some minor copyediting to follow WP:MEDMOS and other manuals. For article assessment, some just edit the talk page directly. However, if you are interested in article assessment in future, I can recommend installing Rater, a tool for article assessment. I use it very frequently. All the best, here and at other projects! Bibeyjj (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@Bibeyjj: Thanks! This answer is what I searched for. Does making page B-class need some consensus or discuss with other project members? LR0725 (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
LR0725, you probably found your answers in regard to this ages ago, but for the record, the process and standards for the various grades are laid out at WP:ASSESS. With regard to the lower grades, there is no firm requirement to establish a consensus for a new grade beforehand: although in theory this determination is as subject to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:BRD as any other aspect of the article, I can't say as I can recall ever seeing an edit war regarding an article's rank even once--though I'm sure they must happen rarely. But for the most part, on lower-traffic articles, that haven't gotten enough attention to move up past C-class, most people just probably wouldn't even notice an edit to the grade, so you are somewhat in your discretion. In any event, the guideline is of course a good place to start for getting an idea of what broader community consensus is, regarding what should appear in an article that has been rating as meeting a certain threshold. And as the guideline also details, there is a very drastic shift to the other end of the spectrum for the two highest classes, with a robust formal process for both classes that is expected to be met before upgrading the designation. SnowRise let's rap 22:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Snow Rise, I just saw this good answer. Thanks a lot. LR0725 (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Interest of Wikiproject

Can I assign anastomosis page to Wikiproject Anatomy? This page is important in anatomy too. --LR0725 (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. -- Athikhun.suw (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Sublingual ganglion

hello, please can info on this be added? Can't find any reference on wikipedia. Maybe it is because it is not always present in humans?>

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sublingual+ganglion 5.167.170.80 (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Frenulum of prepuce of penis is insensitive?

Lively debate on talk page which could use further input. ThanksThelisteninghand (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Chorda tympani

Hi all, I'm new here, but excited to help! I know that chorda tympani was low on the priority list, but I was reading it today as a reference and found it difficult to follow. I overhauled the introduction and structure section. I also added sources. Do you all think there are enough sources to remove from the need citation list? Any and all feedback welcome. Anatomary (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Subsartorial artery

A discussion about this term is located at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Use_of_subsartorial_artery/vein. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The use of 'subsartorial vein' as an alternative for femoral vein is also raised on above link.--Iztwoz (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Clitoris

An article that you have edited or that may interest you, (Clitoris), has content that I have proposed to be removed and moved to another article, (Human clitoris). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a great change, hopefully will reduce a lot of duplicated effort. I'd support inheriting a rating; our current classification is pretty up to date but I don't see a reason for us to pursue an independent quality assessment scale with our limited resources. Tom (LT) (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Muscle tissue#Requested move 19 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Muscle tissue#Requested move 19 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MaterialWorks 21:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kidney#Requested move 3 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kidney#Requested move 3 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Guideline on Multiple muslces in one article

Sometimes there is a lot of muscles covered in one article and sometimes each muscle get thier article, would it make sense to make a kind of guideline on when what makes sense? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Claes Lindhardt great question. The main guideline is at WP:MEDMOS and the general notability guidelines (WP:NOTABILITY as well as WP:SPLIT and WP:MERGE) tend to influence whether subjects are covered separately or on the same page. If you can identify a group you think need attention I'd be happy to help out by having a look with you or working with you to propose a guideline on this. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Harej, another useful project of yours. Would it be possible to run a once-off report? I am not sure we could sustain regular reports but it would be interesting to have a look at. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
A one-off report should be doable once it is ready. Harej (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Sex is not determined by gametes produced

Please see Talk:Sex#Suggestion for Leading sentence and section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Blood-saliva barrier

Can you please give your opinion at Talk:Blood-saliva_barrier on whether a new article is needed for blood-saliva barrier (BSB)? Thak you in advance! --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Bad photos

I and @Claes Lindhardt have been working on the List of skeletal muscles of the human body and it has become clear that several of the muscles have "reused" images or are just scans of Gray's Anatomy 20th edition that do not really explain what the muscle is. For example, just for the head muscles:

I'm not really an illustrator, so what is the best way to go about fixing these? Mathnerd314159 (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalene_muscles - have all the scalenus muscles except the minimus Claes Lindhardt (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interspinales_muscles have no picture yet Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcostalis_muscle also do not have a picture yet Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccygeus_muscle , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levator_ani also seems to be using the same primary pictures. There is a lot of articles using the same picture where both muscles are likely visable but not marked. This might not be a major issue, but it would be very neat to also have resolved. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
puboperinealis, pterygoideus proprius, Muscle of terminal notch, ceratocricoideus and puboprostaticus (males) / pubovaginalis (females) are also still missing pictures Claes Lindhardt (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Same goes for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triceps and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articularis_cubiti_muscle Claes Lindhardt (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Mathnerd314159 and Claes Lindhardt, images are super important to understanding anatomy so your work is appreciated :). When looking for images I generally start by hunting around in Wikicommons, because we can easily include those images (link here: [10]). Sometimes for less well known structures, they're not placed in the correct category on Wikicommons, so I have to be sneaky and look at anatomical images of things that area close by or of the area in general, with a hope that the structure will be labelled there. Hope that helps, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

General problem with anatomy pictures

Wikipedia has a widespread general problem with many of its images showing aspects of gross anatomy, images which are featured on article pages on such topics: All too often, those pictures, even if they show some view that includes the structure that is the topic of the article, do not label the structure in question, or label it using a different name.

The problem is, if you do not already know the topic of the article, then you can't necessarily identify the structure in question in the picture even if it's technically (also) depicted in there. Of course, if you already know all about the structure, then you have no problem seeing it in the picture; it's right there. Alas, if you don't already know, then you can't! Ironically, readers who already know all about the structure don't really need to consult Wikipedia articles on it, so they're not even the primary audience.

This is an all-too-common human problem, where bad teachers with poor self-awareness or perhaps a poorly developed theory of mind do not seem to realise that what they know is not what everybody else knows. More empathy is required here – as are better labels. Put yourself in the reader's shoes: What do they know? Can they tell what they're looking at? Making up for such deficiencies in the image caption is better than nothing but also relatively insufficient. Just as an example of this problem (that's not fixed as of this writing): The Gerdy's tubercle article features an image, and while you could technically argue that what's shown in the picture includes Gerdy's tubercle, really your best bet of seeing a picture that actually shows you Gerdy's tubercle and points it out to you is to just search Google Images instead. That's not to knock Gray's Anatomy woodcuts or other old images, but really, if you want to use such a picture to point out a structure, then you need to edit the picture and upload a copy in which what you're actually trying to show is clearly labelled.
—ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"Explaining the Human Body" videos

explainer video about the thyroid

Hello! A public broadcaster from Germany, Deutsche Welle, just donated thirteen short English-language explainer videos about general physiology to Commons. You can find them at commons:Category:Creative Commons videos by Deutsche Welle. Do you think any of them could be used in an article? Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Human tooth

Human tooth has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Talus bone#Requested move 7 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Talus bone#Requested move 7 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy/Archive_13&oldid=1249728913"