| Revision as of 02:01, 17 September 2014 editFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 edits →Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: six month interaction ban between Flyer22 and zzz: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:58, 30 November 2024 edit undo77.103.227.240 (talk)No edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 120K | |maxarchivesize = 120K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 13 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| |algo = old(28d) | |algo = old(28d) | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes|template=}} | {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes|template=}} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anatomy/Navbar}} | {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anatomy/Navbar}} | ||
| {{Shortcut|WT:ANAT}} | {{Shortcut|WT:ANAT}} | ||
| Line 14: | Line 13: | ||
| <table width="100%" style="width:100%;background:inherit;"> | <table width="100%" style="width:100%;background:inherit;"> | ||
| <tr><td align="center"> | <tr><td align="center"> | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-09-03/WikiProject report|day=3|month=September|year=2014}} | |||
| {{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot II|age=28}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-09-03/WikiProject report|day=3|month=September|year=2014}} | |||
| </td><td align="center"> | </td><td align="center"> | ||
| </td></tr></table></div> | |||
| {{archives | {{archives | ||
| |auto= short | |auto= short | ||
| |index= /Archive index | |index= /Archive index | ||
| |age= 28 | |||
| }}</td></tr> | |||
| |bot= Lowercase sigmabot III | |||
| </table> | |||
| </div> | |||
| == Suggested variable for categorization == | |||
| I think we could make use of ''Variations'' under the rater tool, for any feature that is missing in the majority of the population; such as the ], ], etc. etc. Thoughts? Does anyone know how to implement this? I know {{U|LT910001}} fixed the functionality of the tool, and I never really got the hang of changing the settings properly. -- ] ] (]) 08:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, this has gone by the wayside. We could definitely have a check box to denote what's a variation, and articles can be automatically added to a certain category. I wouldn't support adding it to the list of options (muscle, nerve, ...) though, if that's what you mean, as most variations can already be fit into a category there. I'll get to it before Christmas! --] (]) 06:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] move discussion == | |||
| Opinions are needed on the following matter: ]. A ] is . ] (]) 17:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks Flyer22, a very reasonable move. --] (]) 06:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Merging of ] & ] == | |||
| So, this has been a peeve of mine for a while now, and I've finally decided to do something about it. Instead of simply complain and get someone else to do the merge I've written up a massive expansion, primarily sourced from a quality CC-BY source. After having it almost eclipse other work I've been doing it is at a level where I can show it to others who might be interested in helping out. Basically the article is at around 160kb, and if it wasn't for the reliance on a single source I would push for it to reach FA within short. | |||
| What needs doing is the following: | |||
| * Wikilinking the content on ] onwards. | |||
| * Fixing image #s as has been done in the structure section | |||
| * Merging the content from the 3 sources on ] (the first section is all from CNX and refernced, if merged please only merge with other referenced content. | |||
| * Copyediting for language which speaks directly to the reader (same as the points about, should be done on the Structure section). | |||
| So, if anyone is interested the article can be found here: ] | |||
| -- -- ] ] (]) 16:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks greatly improved! --] (]) 06:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] is severely outdated == | |||
| As title says. -- ] ] (]) 12:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there anything you propose to fix it? ] (]) 13:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::My immediate thought would be to delete it, but maybe move it to a sub-page of this project? -- ] ] (]) 09:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not too sure about what the purpose of the 'Index' series are. I think they're one of WP's heritage structures (like the 160+ individual 'WikiProject peer review' pages that exist but haven't been used for many years). I must confess I've been secretly using this page for some time, because it's an easy way to use the 'Recent Changes' feature and more reliable than the transcluded pages tool (now unavailable). There's a similar list of medical articles used to generate a recent changes list available on ]. Perhaps {{u|DePiep}} may be able to help? What would be the opinion about this change: | |||
| :Replace 'Index of Anatomy articles' content with bot-generated content based on our current articles, sorted alphabetically. | |||
| :Provide an easy-to-follow 'Recent changes' list based on that list. | |||
| Thoughts? I hope you're all well, --] (]) 06:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, the page is very useful to be used for recent changes in Anatomy - provided the list is a bit current list (updated). See ], which can open various RC pages. | |||
| ::More background: That WPMED box has dedicated pages (click the List), that have the article ''and'' its talkpage. These were generated from the ] categories (from talkpage their tagging). Unfortunately, the list-pages are not updated by a bot. Shall I look into such a box for Anatomy? -] (]) 09:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks, {{u|DePiep}}. Do you think you'd be able to do that for us? If you have a main list of all our articles, plopping it down on top of 'Index of Anatomy' articles (if it is alphabetically-ordered) would also be appreciated, as that way the index would be kept up-to-date (although I'm not sure which users use it...) --] (]) 23:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Interview for ''The Signpost'' == | |||
| The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Anatomy for a ''Signpost'' article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, ''']'''. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, '''] ''' ] <small>@</small> 10:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :This is great, and as there is so much to do, even for non-professionals I am very happy to prepare a response. Give it a few days and I can answer your questions. -- ] ] (]) 12:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Makes me wish I was a bit more active in this project that way I'd have something useful to contribute to the interview. Motivation, I may have found it. ] (]) 22:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Ping to {{u|Iztwoz}}, one of our most active editors. ] (]) 00:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've been debating on whether or not I should go ahead and comment or let CFCF comment first. ], do you plan to comment in the interview? Maybe I should email LT910001 about it. ] (]) 00:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}These are my preliminary answers, if there is anything you guys don't agree with feel free to contact me–and yes {{U|Flyer22}} do send something to LT as he's done so much for this project. | |||
| {{cot|Collapsed interview}} | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| ''Please add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign each answer. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them.'' | |||
| ---- | |||
| '''What motivated you to join WikiProject Anatomy? Do you have a background in medicine or biology, or are you simply interested in the topic?''' | |||
| * I found the image content on Misplaced Pages very useful when studying anatomy, and at the same time I realized there were PD sources out there that hadn't been used. I basically started uploading things from my local library which got me into writing, which got me hooked. (CFCF)-- ] ] (]) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I would often use Wiki as a broad overview to learn about different parts of the body. It was very frustrating, because many articles were written very technically. Anatomy is the study of the human body, and we all have one, so the knowledge should be accessible to lay users. In addition, articles in generally have not received much attention, and many are lacking sources or missing key information (such as information about diseases that affect the structure, common variations in the structure, and development). With some other users, I have set off to set this right. (LT) | |||
| '''Have you contributed to any of the project's four Featured or ten Good articles, and are these sort of articles generally easier or harder to promote than other subjects?''' | |||
| *Yes, I wrote ]. My personal experience is that when it comes to fact checking people are timid about reviewing anything related to medicine. I know it can be hard without prior knowledge of the subject, and there are only so many of us on Misplaced Pages that have that. One of the benefits in anatomy is that you can pretty much pick up any source from after 1950 and it's going to be decent, so fact-checking is simpler than in pure medical topics.-- ] ] (]) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * In fact there are now 11 or 12 (the article assessment table is often out of date). (LT) | |||
| * Yes, I wrote 5-6 and helped write ]. When I came to the project, there were 5 good articles. These were about neurological structures, or structures with social and cultural significance (]). Because there were no model articles which could demonstrate how what a purely anatomical structure would look like as a GA, I set out to create some as models, to show it could be done. We first had to get the structure right for articles, and that involved discussions at the manual of style for anatomy articles. I outlined this at the time in our ], which was sort of a manifesto about things we need to get the project going again. Since that newsletter, we've doubled the number of GA, B-class, and C-class articles, as a result of uploading new content, reassessment of articles, and swallowing up a batch of neuroanatomy articles. The articles I created were ], ], ], ], ], and the featured list ]. With any luck, there'll be many more to come. (LT) | |||
| '''Can you explain your scope: what sort of articles qualify to be tagged under this project and what kind of things you don't cover?''' | |||
| * Anything related to physiological (that is to say healthy) human anatomy. At first you think this is a limited number of articles, then you realize all anatomical variations are included. For example all the accessory bones, muscles or other organs that aren't inherently pathological. ]s, but may have a larger number of accessory ossicles or sesamoid bones. This image shows over 30 different bones.]]-- ] ] (]) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * This is actually quite a troublesome question, and something we've put a lot of thought into recently. We cover articles relating to human anatomy. The rub here lies in whether we should have individual articles about every single substructure, or whether they should be represented as single articles. We did, at one time, have an article ]. The problem here is that these articles are taken straight from ] 1918 and are very unloved and untended. By rolling them into bigger articles (such as ] or even ]), we can draw attention to articles, make editing easier, and perhaps re-expand when the articles are more fully fleshed out. (LT) | |||
| '''What is your most popular topic or article, measured by reader page views? Should it be a project aim to improve your highest visibility articles?''' | |||
| * On our most popular list there are two main themes: the major organs are one, and sexual content is the other. In the project we aim to focus on improving content that is high visibility and high importance–which doesn't exclude sexual content per say.<br>We just rather focus on ], ], ] than Low importance topics.-- ] ] (]) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I agree with CFCF. We have been working on the corpus of organ-related articles, which includes the articles ] and ]. Sex-related articles in generally get a lot of attention, and I think it is the article about pure anatomy which need work. (LT) | |||
| '''What are the primary resources used for writing an anatomy article? Do you solely rely on medical experts or are more mainstream references also fine?''' | |||
| * Without insulting all to many people I'll make use of the pun: "Anatomy is a dead science". Apart from smaller advancements–macroscopic anatomy hasn't really moved in the last 100-120 years. New naming conventions have come with the ], but for the most part–what stood true in 1890 about large scale anatomy is true today. This means certain aspects of ] are very hard to follow: for example we don't bother looking for "reviews from the past 5 years" - because in the case there are any reviews at all they are often from 1970-80 at best. Any college level or more advanced text-book from the past 70 years should be a viable source for us. <br>Anatomy is also very visual, which means we need to use images, and old images are fine: I recently had a featured image from 1909. As for resources that can be found online, I'm in the middle of compiling a list of ], and of course there are the ~4000 images I have (only half of which I've uploaded) which haven't found their appropriate article.-- ] ] (]) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| * There is a view that anatomy is a 'dead' science, however the advent of ] ] and ] ] has completely revolutionized the field. Many doctors and surgeons are super-specialising, and there are an increasing number of very particular resources, such as books entirely about small anatomical structures. Locating these resources is very useful, and often the most useful resources come out in the last 10-15 years. These resources aggregate historical opinions of anatomists with recent epidemiological studies, such as of anatomical variation. Something that is very difficult in editing anatomical articles is understanding that a lot of anatomy teaching derives from a very small group of original authors such as ] that are quoted and requoted in literature and other textbooks until the opinions and experiences of those authors have become fact. For users interested in contributing, books, textbooks and atlases are very useful, because they are so information dense. (LT) | |||
| '''How close are your links with ], a related project? Do many members participate in both WikiProjects?''' | |||
| * I'd have a hard time coming up with anyone involved in this project who isn't also a member of that project–which is unfortunate as we would hope to attract more general Wikipedians as well. On the other hand we have the benefit of being able to ask for help whenever we have a larger project, as recently on ].-- ] ] (]) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * There are indeed a number of users who cover both projects, however there are also a number of members who edit purely anatomy-related articles. (LT) | |||
| '''What is the reason you exclusively cover human anatomy and not the body parts of other animals? No project seems to be looking after articles such as ].''' | |||
| *We've more or less formed as a group of editors with human anatomical expertise, so knowledge of animal or comparative anatomy is limited. We do strive to have a section on other animals in every article, and for FA or GA it is pretty much required in order to be sufficient in scope. Previously this has been the field of ] & ]. <br>That we hadn't tagged Thorax is more of an oversight than anything else. With over 9000 articles we occasionally miss even high-importance ones such as thorax, or until recently ].-- ] ] (]) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * There are a few reasons. It is easier to draw a bright line that delineates what relates to human anatomy and what doesn't. "Animal" anatomy could be very broad and we have the good fortune of not (unlike the related project ]) being constantly embroiled in discussions about what relates to our scope. Other reasons for focusing on human anatomy include our strong crossover membership with ], the existence of a number of other animal-related projects such as ] and ], and the interests of our members. (LT) | |||
| '''How can a new member help today?''' | |||
| : Drop in to our Wikiproject, pick some articles, and improve them! We're always looking for people to collaborate with in the project and am happy to collaborate with whatever interests users who drop by. Something we are in great need of is sourcing articles, and users who can write in plain English. There is so much to improve and always room for more hands. Something very helpful a new member could do is go to their local library, find an anatomy book, and start using it to source. (LT) | |||
| * This completely depends on prior knowledge. Someone who is completely new to anatomy could appropriate text from the CC-BY Openstax Anatomy & Physiology book–something which requires little previous knowledge and could be very educational. If you're into working on images there is so much out there that I could point to, and if you want to write all you need to do is pick up an anatomical textbook and write.-- ] ] (]) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Anything else you'd like to add?''' | |||
| * Superficially, anatomy is dry and dull and a dead science. However if you go a little deeper, it's a lively and very active field, with new publications coming out all the time. Anatomy is a fascinating look into how our bodies are structured and develop and I hope more users decide to contribute. (LT) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| -- -- ] ] (]) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :CFCF, your answers are fine for the most. I state "for the most" because, as is surely no surprise to you, I somewhat disagree with your take on the sexual aspects. Also, why do you think it's unfortunate that the majority of editors who are WP:Anatomy editors are also WP:Med editors, or are involved with WP:Med in some way? I'll answer the signpost next. ] (]) 16:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well I don't think I disagree with you as much as you think, and I tried to make it out that sexual content isn't unimportant per say–its just that certain aspects are to put it mildly: more popular than they deserve. As for why I think the overlap with WP:MED is slightly unfortunate is because I think we could attract more general Wikipedians as well. -- ] ] (]) 17:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for explaining. I did note "somewhat disagree"; It'll be clear why I somewhat disagree in the signpost. And I figured "could attract more general Wikipedians as well" is what you meant regarding WP:Anatomy/WP:Med editors. Care clarifying that in the signpost? I think some WP:Anatomy members on the '''Participants''' list aren't involved with WP:Med, though. ] (]) 17:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Alright, any other editors wishing to be included must post their answers within the next 12 hours, when I'll be getting this article ready for publication. '''] ''' ] <small>@</small> 19:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Morning, this is LT910001 signing in from an IP address, I'll sign in using my account later today to verify this. Thanks for the email, Flyer22, I've been taking some time off Wiki recently so I haven't been following affairs that strongly. That said, getting on the signpost is something I've been very enthusiastic about and has definitely been on my to-do list. Am I still able to comment? I'll leave some answers below. ] (]) 23:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Done. (LT) | |||
| ::You're welcome, LT910001. Thanks for weighing in above. '''I overlooked where Rcsprinter stated above that we can answer the signpost in this section'''; that's why I instead directly to the signpost. Excuse me on that, Rcsprinter. ] (]) 00:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks Flyer22. I've copied my responses there, too. ] (]) 00:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I can confirm this IP editor is me. --] (]) 05:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ping {{U|LT910001}}, also take a look at ] if you want to, it had a recent expansion and is undergoing cleanup. -- ] ] (]) 06:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::CFCF, regarding you made to your signpost replies above, you might want to make those changes directly to the signpost...unless Rcsprinter takes care of that for you. And thanks for adding the aforementioned "could attract more general Wikipedians as well" clarification to the signpost. ] (]) 06:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have taken care of copying the small changes. '''] ''' ] <small>@</small> 07:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thanks. I . ] (]) 08:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No, I had already put that directly into the article. '''] ''' ] <small>@</small> 08:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you to all participants. This will be published within the next couple of days. And BTW, the interview did not need to be posted on this page, only at the page linked to. '''] ''' ] <small>@</small> 07:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == GA goal -- 20 GAs == | |||
| We've now more than exceeded our original goal of doubling the number of GAs (... to 10), so I've updated the goal to 20 GAs. I know it's a small goal, but I'd prefer to set small and achievable goals rather than a huge and unrealistic number. --] (]) 23:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Cleanup listing == | |||
| Thanks to {{u|Bamyers99}} we now have a cleanup listing here: , which I've put on the project page ]. This is a useful listing of all the articles in our scope tagged for cleanup, categorised by the relevant cleanup tag. --] (]) 23:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == 11 different infobox-templates == | |||
| I'm planning to do some template work within this project, and thought I'd bring it up here first. | |||
| Currently our project uses no less than 11 different infobox-template for different structures in the body. | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| And I'm not even entirely sure this is all of them. My suggestion is to merge these into a single ], if needed with the following format to differentiate (replace bone with w/e): | |||
| <pre> | |||
| | class = bone | |||
| </pre> | |||
| This makes it simpler if we wish to introduce a new class in the future, and also allows for maintaining only one page. To avoid extra work this can also be accomplished by redirecting old templates using the following: | |||
| <pre> | |||
| {{Infobox anatomy | |||
| | class = bone | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| ==Request for expanding the ] article== | |||
| </pre> | |||
| I went to the ] article to find information about the individual parts of a joint, but there isn't any on the page itself. Considering that I am there exactly to find the missing information, I feel unqualified to be the one adding that. If anyone is to add a short summary of the roles of different parts of a joint, I would be very grateful.—] (] ''' ''' ]) 03:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Now, as for the why: | |||
| I suggest we stop using links to Gray's in the infoboxes. There is today much newer, better content on the web, and Gray's doesn't add much. A better way to solve this would be to implement some form of Atlas parameter, which could include Gray's, Sobotta's, Grant's, Anatomography etc. We would want these types of changes to occur on all the infoboxes at once. | |||
| Additionally I want us to use TA, TH & TE more, and implementing this centrally would be simpler. | |||
| I don't know if I've explained well enough and this is by no means anything that will occur very soon, but I just wanted to give a heads up that I may work on this. -- ] ] (]) 12:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Sounds sound. Not to teach you, but I got this first response in mind (I did a similar merge elsewhere). | |||
| :First: split the tasks. Step 1: merge them all, and make that work correct. Then take a break. Step 2: when centralized into a single point template, change the Gray-issues you mention. Because, in the first step you might encounter situations of same-parametername with different-result (like calculation or presentation). When solved, the second step can take the discussion. (Not with me, I'm not into this project). -] (]) 19:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :And I always keep record of these parameters in one big spreadsheet, offline. That is my main control page (so not a wikipage). It even helps me from first overview till into documenting. -] (]) 19:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I mentioned the Gray-issue simply to give an idea of what could be done with one single template. Thanks for the tips, and this won't be anything fast, I just wanted to know if this was worth putting effort into. -- ] ] (]) 07:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Good idea CFCF. I agree, it is very confusing having this situation. We could start by rolling some of the smaller ones in. While we are talking about infoboxes, some other changes I'd like to see are: | |||
| #Insert a 'Greek' paremeter so we have the two relevant base languages | |||
| #Separate content into 'identifiers' (Gray's anatomy, TA) and 'Details' (origin, insertion, ...) and possibly external resources too. | |||
| #Remove the colouring of artery/vein, as it's distracting and confusing to have so many colours (eg when a structure has artery/vein/lymph/nerve all coloured) | |||
| #Merge into a single infobox | |||
| #Have links to the relevant 'Anatomical terminology' displayed relevant to the type of box. | |||
| I think there are two main reasons for the existing infoboxes. (1) is to separate out different things, eg for categorisation (2) is because of the unique 'action' parameter for each box (muscle movement, etc). I think we could have a general 'function' parameter that holds this information. I actually created a template here ] to test some things out, the 'mnemonic' parameter is by no means one I feel should be included in an infobox that's used, feel free to play around. --] (]) 06:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Cool, I'll take a look – and as for categorization, it is possible to do this with a parameter as well. | |||
| #As for the Greek parameter, I've already added that about a week ago at ], and if we merge them it will be present in all of the infoboxes– for uses see ], ], ]. | |||
| #It would be possible to simple have an atlas field and use it to link to templates. | |||
| #Interesting you say that, I would have thought that to be the major factor behind actually using the templates, but I don't really find them all that useful either, and they aren't present in all the derivation of the infoboxes either. | |||
| #Once I get a hang of the if-code that is needed this won't be that hard to implement either, it would all be down to the new class= parameter. | |||
| :-- -- ] ] (]) 07:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The individual parts of a joint depend on its type, which is why information on their structural makeup is found on their individual pages. You might be looking for the ] – the most common type of joint and what many people probably think of when they hear the word joint. Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere on the joint broad-concept article. Hope this helps! ] (]) 16:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Merging 11 templates seems very nice idea. Without loss of information for readers, we can get easier maintainable infobox. --] (]) 18:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Base of skull == | |||
| === Why need to classify within anatomy? === | |||
| Allow me. Why need for your parameter {{para|class|bone}} in new {{tl|anatomy}}? | |||
| If you prepare well, you can avoid this requirement. It requires removing double parameter meaning (in those 11). | |||
| Would someone mind taking a look at ]? It's not supported by citations and for the most part seems to be just links to other associated articles. There also seems to be an excessive number of images being used. -- ] (]) 19:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| For example. In {{tl|infobox bone}} there is {{para|Articulations|}}. Let's assume (for argument, & fun) that {{tl|Infobox brain}} has this parameter too. One better resolve this contradiction ''within anatomy'', before requiring a "class=" parameter. So, best aim at: no {{para|class|}} requirement at all. -] (]) 00:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Well this would lose us the benefit of applying categories through the templates. While I don't think this is a specially good solution, it would be quite a lot of work to reclassify everything. Then again, much is being reclassified through the rater tool anyway, but those parameters aren't really the same. There we have '''gross anatomy''' and '''embryology''', but nothing like ''bone'' or ''muscle''. -- ] ] (]) 10:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Buccal organ == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ], which is within the scope of this WikiProject.  ] currently redirects to ]. The discussion regarding whether it should continue to do so, be retargetted or be deleted needs input from those with knowledge of anatomical terminology. ] (]) 00:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)<!-- Template:WikiProject please see --> | |||
| {{Full explanation diagram of a human eye section}} | |||
| See the templates in additional images. I like that these templates are information-dense, and they are probably quite useful to users. However I am always unsure as to where to place them, because a number of these labelled templates are huge, which I presume interferes with readability, particularly on mobile devices. Does anyone have any ideas about how we could display the content better? (perhaps by including an 'expand' button? eg 'Labelled diagram of the eye, expand to see in more detail'). This might just be a problem in my mind, but I've seen a few of these templates and am wondering about how they impact dislay/readability. Would like to know what other users think, --] (]) 23:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I personally don't like the policy saying that things shouldn't be hidden. If it was possible to have a button which swapped between these two I think that would be great: | |||
| {{Simple explanation diagram of a human eye section}} | |||
| -- -- ] ] (]) 10:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| == 10,000! == | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 19:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| At some point over the last week we surpassed '''10,000''' articles under our scope! --] (]) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Wow, that is slightly scary to consider when there are only so few of us. -- ] ] (]) 10:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 01:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The dorsal column medial luminous pathway is an Afferent pathway of the Peripheral General Sensory Nervous System that sends signals from the body the body. There is also Special Sensory, this functions directly within the brain regarding eyes, ears, nose and mouth . Efferent is Central Motor System that sends signals from Brain ] (]) 15:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Opinions are needed on the above linked discussion. I and the other editor edit medical articles. A ] for the discussion is ] (]) 02:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:58, 30 November 2024
| WikiProject Anatomy | ||||||
 Main page |
 Discussion |
 Things To Do |
 Tools |
 Article alerts |
 Manual of Style |
 Resources |
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Request for expanding the joint article
I went to the joint article to find information about the individual parts of a joint, but there isn't any on the page itself. Considering that I am there exactly to find the missing information, I feel unqualified to be the one adding that. If anyone is to add a short summary of the roles of different parts of a joint, I would be very grateful.—Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 03:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- The individual parts of a joint depend on its type, which is why information on their structural makeup is found on their individual pages. You might be looking for the Synovial joint – the most common type of joint and what many people probably think of when they hear the word joint. Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere on the joint broad-concept article. Hope this helps! YuniToumei (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Base of skull
Would someone mind taking a look at Base of skull? It's not supported by citations and for the most part seems to be just links to other associated articles. There also seems to be an excessive number of images being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Buccal organ
You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 10 § Buccal organ, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Buccal organ currently redirects to Sucker (zoology). The discussion regarding whether it should continue to do so, be retargetted or be deleted needs input from those with knowledge of anatomical terminology. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Brain
Brain 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. Z1720 (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Vagina#Requested move 14 November 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vagina#Requested move 14 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. JJPMaster (she/they) 01:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
The dorsal column medial luminous pathway is an Afferent pathway of the Peripheral General Sensory Nervous System that sends signals from the body the body. There is also Special Sensory, this functions directly within the brain regarding eyes, ears, nose and mouth . Efferent is Central Motor System that sends signals from Brain 77.103.227.240 (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)