Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archived talk pages:


Contents

[edit] Project reactivation

I (and others perhaps) want to see this project activated in time for fall Gross Anatomy classes in medical schools. I have (timidly) archived much of the previous talk page that seemed to be inactive. I think a great job has been done with the port from Gray's Anatomy (images and all). But there is tons more that needs to be done. I think guidelines need to be established. A few of us have been throwing around some guidelines for the articles at the following page: the preclinical guidelines We need to get a finalized set of guidelines on a subpage in this project, and I'm certainly not comfortable in adopting any without input from more people. Moreover, I would like to completely redo the main project page. The number of articles covered in this project is very large (ligaments, bones, muscles, nerves, arteries, regions, etc.) It will be impractical to put their statuses on the main project page. Most topics are stubs. Gray's anatomy text is way out of date (in terminology, of course). I think this project should become a child of the preclinical medicine project (which covers basic medical sciences), which is itself a child of the medicine project. We probably need contributors of the following sort:

  • Those who can provide (raw) information on anatomy (students, professors, anatomical hobbyists, etc)
  • Prose people - those who can rework an article to make it sound good
  • General editors (to make sure articles comply with guidelines, links work, etc)
  • Super-wiki-literate people (I'm not that wiki-literate) to manage the projects page (making it work well, like some other projects). Also to assist with templates, etc.
  • Computer gfx artists (perhaps) who can enhance some of the Gray's images, as well as develop schematic diagrams for certain articles.

--Mauvila 21:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Suggestion / proposal

I was reading hyoid bone, and it occurred to me that it would be great to have a "locator map" showing the position of various anatomical parts on a human skeleton (or substantial portion thereof). This would work similarly to the ubiquitous Rambot maps - see Carbon County, Pennsylvania for one example - and would require a blank "template" skeleton, with the appropriate bone colored red in each article. This would be very useful and relativley easy for bones; all that is needed is a good blank template to use. After that, organs, muscles, and other features could be tackled, although they would be more complex. Anyway, I think it's a nifty idea and wanted to suggest it somewhere. - Bantman 22:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Infoboxes

We currently have the following infoboxes for anatomy: Template:Infobox Artery, Template:Infobox Bone, Template:Infobox Brain, Template:Infobox Ligament, Template:Infobox Muscle, Template:Infobox Nerve, Template:Infobox Vein, and Template:Infobox Anatomy (for structures that don't fit in anywhere else). Nephron has made some suggestions (involving formatting and footnote numbering), and rather than address it on user talk pages, it seemed to make more sense to bring the discussion here, to make it easier for other people to get involved. By the way, I've uploaded a few hundred more of the Gray's images over the last month, but I could use help getting the rest in. You can see which ones are missing (or just uploaded using unknown filenames) at List of images and subjects in Gray's Anatomy. I'm putting the images into commons so they're easier to share with other wikis. --Arcadian 21:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anatomy Infoboxes - image sizes

re picture added to Submandibular gland, is there a way within infoboxes to adjust the size of the image used? Image:Gray602.png clearly should not be used at its full size, but the current sizing seems too small. I tried Gray602.png|300px| but I can't get this to work in an infobox. David Ruben Talk 15:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added an optional parameter, 'Width', which overrides the current default of 190. An example of it in use is now available at Submandibular gland. --Arcadian 15:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gray's images

I have finished uploading the images from Gray's anatomy. A directory is available at List of images and subjects in Gray's Anatomy. --Arcadian 12:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


Good. We are currently trying to hammer out some new guidelines over at page. --Mauvila 21:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Anatomy templates

I think the current set of anatomy templates might could use a division, so that the text (attachments, branches of arteries, etc.) isn't hiding in the shadow of the Gray's diagram in the margin. I think diagrams are great in their current location, but maybe the crucial info should assume a more front-and-center position in the article. Of course, this is easy for me to say because I have no idea how to do wiki templates. I also think a "relations" section might be useful. This would mention what is anterior/posterior/etc where relevant. --Mauvila 13:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see some advantages to re-ordering. To make it easier for us (and others) to visualize your proposal -- please describe a specific anatomical structure (preferably one with two images on it), and the order of fields that you think would make the most sense. --Arcadian 17:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't propose anything radical, but let's take Subclavian artery for example. Specifically, look at the 'branches' section I added. My proposal is that we eliminate (for arteries) the TO and FROM parts from the main template in the margins, and make that information front-and-center, as it currently is for 'subclavian artery'. With many arteries, the most important pieces of information are their source and branches.

An aside: the subclavian article (for example) doesn't have anything about its location between the anterior and middle scalenes, its relations with the first rib, etc. I guess I'll add some stuff. --Mauvila 07:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If by "front and center", you mean in the body of the article as opposed to the infobox, then I'd recommend that we keep the source and branches in both places -- in the infobox without context, and in the body of the article with clarifying context. (But I'd be interested in hearing what other people think as well.) In Template:Infobox Artery, I've changed the label "From" to become "Source", and "To" to become "Branches". We could also add a new field called "Relations" if you think that would be a good idea. --Arcadian 12:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anatomy pages

Hello. I'm a doctor from Australia. I'm an administrator on wikipedia, and I frequently edit anatomy articles - it's a favorite subject of mine. Do you mind if I join your project? - Richardcavell 23:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

By all means, go right ahead. Any contribution is welcomed. Fortunately, Arcadian (and others?) has imported an old version of Gray's anatomy and has done a great job with that and the images and things. Personally, I have recently been going around and updating terms to their modern standard, sometimes cleaning up the old Gray's anatomy format and adding bits and pieces of information when possible. But anatomy on Wikipedia still has a long way to go and needs all the help it can possibly get. Mauvila 23:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me join Mauvila in welcoming you to the project, and encouraging you to be bold -- there are relatively few people on en.wikipedia working on anatomy (compared to pathology, biochem, etc.), and we can use all the help we can get. --Arcadian 01:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article names - discussion

There was a discussion on Talk:fibular artery about naming (i.e. peroneal vs. fibular).

I have several thoughts about this:

  • I understand the advantages of 'fibular' over 'peroneal' -- the most practical being... it is easier to remember 'cause it has the same name as the bone and is consistent with how the other major leg arteries are named (post. tibial & ant. tibial). I don't think there is really a concern about perineal vs. peroneal-- they are quite far apart and which is meant is clarified by context.
  • Terminologia Anatomica seems fine and good but the catalogue isn't online-- this makes naming more complicated and not as readily verifiable. One way around this would be to create an article -- list of Terminologia Anatomica terms and commonly used equivalents. What is the link the Mercksource? --The eMedicine Dorland's doesn't say one term is perferred over another -- fibular a, peroneal a.
  • Renaming peroneal to fibular is a violation of WP:Naming -- as currently written (fibular appears to be used much less frequently; also, usually first name stands). If the name change is to stand WP:Naming should be amended with an "Anatomy" section.
  • Wikipedia's mission isn't really to correct commonly used bad terminology/usage of terms that may be confusing or difficult to remember. Is there a line that should be drawn-- where some eponyms are maintained? Should we be renaming foramen of Winslow to epiploic foramen, Fallopian tube to ovarian tube and Eustachian tube to auditory tube?
  • Personally, I'm okay with doing away with most if not all of the eponyms -- I find 'em harder to remember than something that is descriptive. Nephron  T|C 04:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure about eponyms. I know they aren't standard, and most of the unpopular ones have already been moved. But I'm not going to be the one to go and change Fallopian tube to uterine tube. See the discussion for Ampulla of Vater for one take on this.
Also, when one decides which is more common, where does one draw the line in terms of time? If we were to take a survey of all anatomical works written, we might find the most common name for some stuff are names that haven't been used in years. Also, in some cases, it seems wrong that popular usages, correct or not (even in the medical community), etc should dictate what the name of something is. Think of a dictionary. The word comprise for example. The majority of uses of this word are wrong (e.g. "This is comprised of two things.") The dictionary includes this most common usage, but it does not give it Definition #1. It strikes a balance on 'what should be' and 'what is'. Not that anatomical terms are "incorrect" in the same way English usages are, but I think a similar concept is at play.

Also, I don't think Wikipedia naming conventions always favor the most popular term. For example, Mormons links to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, because the latter is the official (but not the most popular in a wider context) term. In the case of fibular nerve, both fibular and peroneal are acceptable, and perhaps a different rule should pertain to cases like these. Mauvila 02:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just curious-- what does Terminologia Anatomica say about the ampulla of Vater? Is it "ampulla of Vater (hepatopancreatic ampulla)" or "hepatopancreatic ampulla (ampulla of Vater)"? Nephron  T|C 05:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel somewhat old now; I remember learning in anatomy that "fibular artery" was an incorrect term and that the correct term was "peroneal artery (and nerve)" :) My personal take on this is would be to go with Terminologia Anatomica despite difficulty of access, with exceptions being where one term vastly exceeds the others in terms of actual clinical use. Peroneal >> fibular makes sense from what I've seen clincally (but I'm not a vascular surgeon), as does Ampulla of Vater >> hepatopancreatic ampulla, and Fallopian tube >> uterine tube. Pubmed would be an exceptional surrogate as to what clinical use of names is -- Samir धर्म 12:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


According to the TA, Ampulla of Vater is not acceptable at all. I don't think any eponyms are. The two TA acceptable names for the structure are (in order of most preferred): hepatopancreatic ampulla; biliaropancreatic ampulla. There are really all sorts of issues to be resolved as far as naming goes. Even with the TA, the TA only specifies the Latin standard, and the English publication has chosen an English equivalent--sometimes the English term is simply the Latin term (e.g. flexor carpi radialis), and sometimes it is a translation. Occasionally, the translation competes with its Latin version (e.g. ligamentum teres versus the round ligament). Which one should it be? As far as the issues listed by Samir, it is a bit different because, while peroneal is acceptable by TA standards, the eponyms are not. Mauvila 03:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
We should develop a naming convention on this. Your points regarding the translations definitely hold, but the one thing to remember is that anatomical terms are used every day in clinical practice, which would be the WP:NAME derivative in terms of common use. If a term is used more frequently, it should serve as the name of the article. We're lucky in that we have PubMed as an excellent objective way of seeing how terms are actually used -- Samir धर्म 04:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I cannot help but think that the Terminologia Anatomica (TA) is sort of like the Rechtschreibreform, otherwise known as the German spelling reform of 1996. It was developed by a few academics, had good intentions but has a limited amount of traction. Any case, perhaps we can add the TA term to the 'infobox' (like the Latin is already) --in addition to the lead in sentance of the article. (ASIDE: Generally, I think the infobox should be like figures in journal publication-- they never replace the text-- only supplement it. I think this unwritten rule has been violated by the infoboxes quite regularily. Duplication of information in tables and figures is normal.) On the issue of Latin versus English-- I think Latin should generally be favoured for reasons of consistency and history. I think PubMed is a good way to go and I think it should be heavily favoured over any Google search results. Nephron  T|C 16:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree about infoboxes. About the other stuff, unlike the German spelling reforms, TA actually has traction. Read the back of the new Grant's atlas--it cites it. I don't think we have addressed the main issue here, which is how to choose what name. Should eponyms be used at all? I mean, they are REALLY out of favor with textbooks, and a whole new generation of doctors is rising that is fairly ignorant of all but a few eponyms. Moreover, eponyms are out of favor because they should be--they are not descriptive, and they are occasionally under dispute with more than one name associated with it. Should popularity be the main criterion? i.e. should Wikipedia be reactive, not proactive? Encyclopedias generally strike a balance, as do most dictionaries. Also, remember that if we use journals, that Wikipedia might be mimicking the word choice of STYLE GUIDELINES for a journal, and not reflecting the common nomenclature. What journals should be used for popularity determinations--I would not suggest using every single one in PubMed. What about anatomy journals? Naturally, American journals will outnumber all other English language journals combined, and so any usage peculiar to America will automatically win. And what date should the cutoff be for journals? What about terms that are popular but are also inaccurate? Mauvila 19:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Some eponyms are used frequently. I'll speak of the ampulla of Vater. Every day, I see dozens of ampullas. I know of no gastroenterologist who calls it the "hepatopancreatic ampulla". Almost every journal article written about the ampulla of Vater calls it the "ampulla of Vater". To name it the hepatopancreatic ampulla on wikipedia because it is thought to be anatomically more correct isn't really doing service to the fact that no one seems to call it that -- Samir धर्म 22:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't really comment on the usage of ampulla of Vater vs hepatopancreatic ampulla (HPA)... but I can't help think the eponym should go, regardless of the argument above. It could be argued that further use of the eponym is disservice in the long-term and that for the lay public a discriptive term (as opposed to an eponym) is better 'cause-- it will make understanding the material easier. Perhaps Einstein said it best... "[e]verything should be as simple as possible but not simplier."[1][2]
Nephron  T|C 05:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


Generally, the older doctors will call stuff by what they learned it as, but those just getting out of medical school are far more likely to use the newer name than the established physicians. (Maybe a case of teaching old dogs new tricks...) Take for instance the fibularis versus peroneal: one of my gross anatomy professors gave a lecture calling the muscle peroneus. The next day's lecturer, that next day, wrote on the board about how peroneus is the old name, and that we will call it fibularis. And when the original lecturer gave his next lecture, he was calling it fibularis. And so peroneus is a somewhat odd and foreign word for me and my classmates. And not once did a single teacher refer to the uterine tube as the Fallopian tube...uterine tube makes much more sense. Same with auditory tube/Eustacian tube. I suppose we have been indoctrinated by the PhDs to hate anatomical eponyms, and there are plenty more like us on the way. Mauvila 07:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a first year, struggling with this alternate naming myself now (in class!) and I have some advice. I won't comment on the specific examples above (seems like there have been some fights about it), but let me share my opinion that claiming "this name is right" or "this name is wrong" really does nothing to clarify the articles, which is what it's all about. Let me recommend as a potential standard something I've been doing myself. I propose that in the event of naming conflicts:

  • don't start moving articles to the 'right' name.
  • do keep the names consistent within each article. I know it as the celiac trunk, but I restrain myself and type celiac artery when I'm editing that article.
  • do put boldface lists of the alternate names as parentheticals in the first sentence, as in the common fibular nerve article.
  • do make sure there are redirects for all the alternate names. If you know a structure by a certain alternate name and have to dig through search results to find the wiki name, add a redirect for the next person.

Most importantly,

  • do explain the conflict when it's a matter of substance or confusion (as I and others are attempting to do in the basement membrane/basal lamina article).

Thoughts? Robotsintrouble 02:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accessibility

I've noticed that the whole of anatomy articles are very very very hard to understand for someone who knows nil about anatomy. Because every anatomical part has a function in relation to another part, you have to go through countless articles to even vaguely grasp a single concept. Is there a way we could rewrite these articles so that they speak in more general terms as well as technical terms? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 23:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the articles are a bit inaccessible at the moment, and some of the details are sort of circular. The inaccesibility is part of the process of development for these articles. For example, many of the articles come from Gray's Anatomy (from early 20th century). The first step is updating terminology and making the articles independent of the text. After this, the articles are still "out-of-reach". I think as the articles continue in their development, they will become more accessible, at least those articles (or sections of articles) that have general interest. I'm thinking that maybe the first part of the article, sort of the "above the fold" part should be aimed at the typical user, while the details in the subsections should be aimed at those with a basic understanding of anatomy. That's just my take on it. You bring up a very important point, and I hope you don't mind, but I changed the section heading of this to accessibility. There are a lot of issues that need to be resolved. In many instances, the more accessible the language--e.g. this structure is under (instead of inferior to) this one--the more imprecise. (If you see things that are very hard to understand, you might want to mention specifically what should be clarified on the talk page.) Mauvila 01:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I wish I could help clarifying things, but I'm really not that knowledgable on anatomy. So if I see anything that might need a looksee, I'll let you know. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 08:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Guidelines

I just put something on the anatomy guidelines talk page about singular versus plural, paired structures, etc...I was just wondering if there were any objections to this policy. Mauvila 19:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anatomy stub type huge: subcats?

The stub category Cat:anatomy stubs is now at eight listings pages: might be handy to split it up a tad. I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2006/October#Anatomy_subtypes. (I'd have mentioned this here earlier, but I've only just noticed this wikiproject.) If anyone has any comments on that proposal, or any further ideas... Alai 22:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MEDMOS needs YOU!

The Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) is entering a critical stage: I'm informing people to visit the page, make corrections where possible, and then state there support or disagreements on the talk page, so we can see if there is consensus to turn this proposed guideline into a consensus-supported guideline.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

(Moving thread from User talk:Arcadian)

I found another seer image that's wrong, this time at Pharynx. From the article text: Oropharynx, which lies behind the oral cavity. The anterior wall consists of the base of the tongue and the vallecula; ...does that arrow look like it's behind the base of the tongue to you? Robotsintrouble 05:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As with the Brachioradialis image, I'd recommend not deleting the image, but adding a caption annotation addressing inaccuracies in the image. Or, if you're feeling ambitious, you might be able to fix the picture. Since it sounds like your main objection is the position of the arrow, you could just adjust a few dots on the picture (even Microsoft Paint should be sufficent) and adjust it to address your concerns. --Arcadian 04:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
(Hope you don't mind me joining the conversation.) Do you mean "delete" as in deleting the image from WP entirely, or as in simply removing it from the article? I agree these images shouldn't be outright deleted, but I think removing them from the article is a step in the right direction. IMO it's better than annotating the error. I tend to agree with Netter that if the image isn't conveying a useful idea (and an erroneous image most certainly isn't), then it's not worth sharing. --David Iberri (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, an imperfect, schematic diagram is still useful in orienting a reader to a subject, and helping the reader know where to direct their eye on more detailed diagrams. For example, I feel that this is more immediately comprehensible to a lay audience than this. But I acknowledge that this is a complex design issue involving many tradeoffs, which is why I wanted to move this thread to a more public location. To establish common ground: I think we all agree that the Gray's anatomy images are more precise than the "seer.cancer.gov" images, while the captions on the seer.cancer.gov remain legible at smaller sizes than those on the Gray's. If you really think that the Pharynx article is made more useful by removing the seer image, I won't stand in your way, but before doing so, you might want to run it by a couple of non-medical friends and see what they think. --Arcadian 06:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Arcadian is right, and I admit to being on an anatomically-correct-at-all-costs path recently. I don't think the pharynx image should be removed, as you said it's much clearer and simplier than the gold standard Grey's plates. What really worries me is that I've been finding chronic inaccuracies in the seer images, and I haven't even been going through them systematically. Some, like the pharynx image, are utterly trivial and arguably aren't even erroneous. On the other hand, while the brachioradialis image is clear, it's clearly the wrong muscle. This makes me question the labeling for all the other seer images... is there a way to list them so we can go through and examine each one for other labeling issues? It'd be nice to pick them out and fix labels wherever possible so they can be included. Perhaps some of the autowiki tools are appropriate, but I have no idea how to use any of them. Robotsintrouble 20:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I know of no existing list of seer images, but this provides a log of the images I have uploaded to commons. --Arcadian 23:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anatomy is the current Article Creation and Improvement Drive article

The title says it all. Sorry this message is a bit late. Dar-Ape 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project banner

I have created a banner for the project at {{WikiProject Anatomy}}. I intend to add it to all the articles relating to anatomy that appear on the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/VA tagging page that I think relate to anatomy. The first such article is Leonardo da Vinci, as for whatever reason all the biography articles come first on that page. You are of course free to do whatever you want with the banner. Sorry for any trouble I may have unintentially created. John Carter 20:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for creating it. --Arcadian 21:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tooth

Hey, I am asking you on behalf of WikiProject Dentistry about an article that relates to both of us. There has been much editing of tooth, and I realized that most of the information is about human teeth. Should there be a separate "animal teeth" article that the section should show as the main article or should the majority of the content in the tooth article be moved to a "human tooth" (or would this be an exception to have plural: "human teeth") article? What are your thoughts on the matter? My initial instinct was to keep the article as is and make a new article about animal teeth for the section to refer to, but I did not know if most anatomy articles try to keep a certain format when addressing that issue. Your input would be appreciated. - Dozenist talk 03:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neuroanatomy stubs

The stub type Cat:neuroscience stubs has become very large; I've made a proposal to create a Cat:neuroanatomy stubs sub-type. If you have any thoughts on that, or ideas for further sub-types, please share them at WP:WSS/P. Alai 17:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Anatomy_d6e2.html"