Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 3

src: jech.bmj.com

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 3

Merger atau lebih banyak kerja sama langsung dengan Wp: MED?

I think this project can benefit from merging with or at least direct cooperation with WikiProject Medicine. Many articles can benefit from a section on pathological significance (possibly a larger summary of articles about a disease). It can also attract editors in the medical field who are currently unconscious or interested in this separate project. Mind? Please also check my proposal above for the reorganization of anatomy articles. Elennaro (talk) 13:41, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Agree.-- Taylornate (talk) 04:00, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

More cooperation with WPMED would be nice... but it's not there for lack of interest. Many editors involved with WPMED also watch this project, and sometimes help; But their main interest is medicine, not anatomy. Making this project a WPMED task force has been discussed before, but changing the organization/structure will not help its activities. Interested editors make active projects. Currently, almost all WPMED task forces are not active as a place for discussion. They are mostly used for article categorization with banner tagging. --Scott Alter (talk) 19:42, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it is not for lack of interest. Things that WP: MED can help, either on anatomy or sexual topics related to medical problems, are generally ignored by the project. And the fact remains that their project is much more active than this project or Wikipedia: WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 4:03, June 23, 2012 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 3

Add Gallery, Lateral Sternum Views to Human Sternum page

Hello, I just edited wikipedia (like this site!) So I do not know the code well enough, but can we add the photo gallery to the Human Sternum page that includes the Gray Anatomy # 117 plate, lateral sternum view? The anterior view is # 116 and already on the page. There may be some other relevant plates as well after the gallery is in place. thanks. StevenRoyKnight (talk) - Comment that has not ended adding 19:54, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

3

3 positives:

1. The entire article is very thorough. It contains many parts such as presentation, mechanisms of injury, pathophysiology, diagnosis, etc.
2. the article is well organized. In the diagnostics section, it is divided into symptoms, signs, MRI, ultrasound, and in office testing. No section repeats information elsewhere.
3. The pictures in the article all have a description of what it is. All images are placed on the right.

3 issues:

1. The article is too long. It may be difficult for an impatient reader to read.
2. The rehabilitation section is a bit too short, and may include some exercise pictures. The operation section is very detailed.
3. The images that represent the anatomy of the injury site are a bit too small, could have used a bigger picture. The x-ray image is also rather small. - Unlike comments previously added by Kin412a (talk o contribs) 08:05, May 12, 2012 (UTC) Kin412a (talk) 08:13, May 12, 2012 ( UTC)

This will help if we know which article you are talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Category: Gray Anatomy Pictures

There is an ongoing discussion about Category: Gray Anatomy pictures. Additional clarifications and constructive suggestions will be highly appreciated in the discussion. Thanks, - Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:55, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Nominated for deletion Templates: Gen-class-bones

Template: Gen-class-bones has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion on the template entry in Template for the discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 15:28, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

src: www.asist.org

Hi

Does this project cover only human anatomy? Where do I find the anatomical and physiological information of animals and plants? Thank you! - Ã, RexRowanÃ, Conversations 17: 44, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

I do not know the answer to the first question, but WP: Veterinary WikiProject or WP: WikiProject Plants is probably a useful page to look at. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Redirects from Latin terminology

Hi. I have a general request that I hope you will help me. As you edit and primarily create new articles, can you make a transition from the Latin term to the article? Since most European countries with British exceptions use the Latin term, it will help many people to find information with this diversion (Latin terms are often included in the article so it will not take more than 30 extra seconds). It will also make it easier for many people to add anatomy projects. So far I made about 500 redirects and just made it into "C" in my dictionary, so I need a little help for this one. thanks. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 12:28, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Talk: Vulva # Request move

Opinions are needed on whether or not the topic is to divide the Vulva article so that there is an article called Vulva Man to specifically cover the human vulva. Flyer22 (talk) 04:14, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Thoughts

Can you share your thoughts here? Pass a Method talk 11:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I posted this on WT: MED, thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Providing data and links automatically for anatomical development

We recently launched LifeMap Discovery (discovery.lifemapsc.com), embryonic development database, stem cell research and regenerative medicine for developmental biologists and stem cell researchers. In our database, we describe the development of organs, anatomical compartments and cells and have created images and developmental trees that describe these processes. We want to share our content with WikiPedia by adding existing developmental biology articles (such as Lung Development) and by adding new articles. I would greatly appreciate your direction regarding our contribution as well as the idea of ​​the automation process if it exists. Thank you Yaron Guan-Golan LifeMap Sciences - Unmarked comments previously added by Mr8Bit (talk o contribs) 03:40, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If I were you I would post this on Wikipedia: WikiProject Medicine for two reasons. The subject you mentioned above is more within the scope than us and this project is not the most active at the moment. But try Wikiproject Medicine because it sounds very interesting. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 10:56, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Join the project

Hi, my username is a Starfleet officer and I want to join your project. Can you let me how to join? - Unmarked comments added by Starfleet officer (talk o contribs) 01:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. First, sorry for the long delay. There is no application process for the Anatomy project. You simply select the article you want to fix and start editing. We are currently trying out this month's theme; improve bone articles. If you want to swing please do. This applies to any anatomy related articles. If you are new to Wikipedia or in any other way you need the most help you can write here or on my talk page. Each question is accepted and I and the other are more than willing to check all the edits you make. Happy editing. Best wishes --JakobSteenberg (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Please remember to sign your post (only on the talk page not in the article) with ~~~~. That way we can see who wrote (Generate username, link to talk page and time stamp).

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Resuscitation Effort

Hi. To me, this is sad because this project is a bit comatose. I have no doubt that we have many contributors who put a lot of work into an anatomy article, but it does not seem as much going on as a project when you compare with Wikipedia: Wikiproject Medicine. I have an idea that might change this a bit. We have a lot of startup articles and are starting to be assessed that are below the textbook level. By this I do not mean under very specific litteratury says rectal surgery, but under Gray Anatomy for students and a combined textbook anatomy and physiology (you know the first book type you read in medschool and similar education). I suggest that next month (febuary) be named Adopting bone moon and the rules are simple.

1) Select the bone where the article is below the textbook level, e.g. tibia

2) Write below: I choose my favorite tibia, bone from all

3) Bring the tibia to textbook level in a month, preferably with a little help from some friends (ask to read, suggestions for improvement etc on this page)

4) Feel good about yourself

5) Suggest next month's weather should be about arteries, lymphatics, facial muscles or any rock of your ship

Either Doc Elisa ^? wants to improve the Circulatory system and look for some suggestions. Please join. Here is my penny:

• Additional citations because most parts are missing
• Expansion of Health and disease sections. Only a few lines include a brief introduction to cardiovascular disease and congenital heart defects, already associated with.
• May eliminate the Nicotine effect on the cardiovascular system
• The new section on the rules may be
• Maybe somewhere it can be explained what "route" the blood (elastic artery - & gt artery muscle - & gt; arteriole - & gt; capillary - & gtoles venoles - & gt; venes) or something like that. It can be something that readers are looking for.
• Short section on the lymphatic system, more or less the version boiled from the head of the lymphatic system itself. Maybe one-third the size
• The fetal circulation section may be

Also on the talk page there are some valid points, not sure if they have been fixed. Hope this helps --JakobSteenberg (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. I also want to help the circulatory system this month. =) If all three of us want to help, we can announce it maybe on the page itself (kind of discretely, maybe) to tell people that they can edit it or make suggestions for improvements on the talk page (in accordance with {{tafi}}, ). Biosthmors (talk) 19:09, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I'll be happy to work on it. I'm not sure if it should be marked with tafi-thingy, but that's just because I do not know how it works. JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:32, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

!! Geez !! all cardiovascular physiology has been edited by someone since 2007, a very subtle change in the middle of a sentence or paragraph has changed its meaning. I am trying to improve. I've reviewed the potential for heart action and diastolic heart failure, the heart frame but I have dozens of articles to verify. Sometimes I doubt myself and I think it is me who needs to update my knowledge! There is genuine research and fiction everywhere. Difficult to disclose because the change has been smooth in the middle of the correct paragraph. For example: [1] in order to heart: In youth, this collagen structure is free of calcium adhesion and is quite flexible. (True) Aging heart and vascular trees accumulate calcium so as to prejudice adherence (correct) and define themselves more clearly with a Calcium Score. This accumulation contributes to the AV node and AV bundle delay of the depolarizing wave in such a way that the atria can contract and assist ventricular filling before the ventricles themselves outline and contract... This is wrong! But it seems right. Is it true to explain the bundle is wrong to explain the AV delay. So I can not help as I expect in anatomy projects. I am sorry. But such an affirmation must be corrected quickly: "Venous blood is deoxygenated blood moving from the left ventricle, through systemic circulation in the route to the right atrium" [2]. Doc Elisa ^? 15:35, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Sad to see you go... Happy hunting! JakobSteenberg (talk) 17:32, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

• I can not help as I want, but I do not go:) Doc Elisa ^? 17:43, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Upgrade of this month's theme

The theme of the month is... (drums-solo, please)... Arteries and veins ! If you want to improve one article in this category, please post the article name below. You do not have to do a lot of work. Every improvement is greatly appreciated. This does not mean you have to work on themes. If you like lymph nodes, please work on lymph nodes. But if you want to fix this artery or vein article this month, please do the following:

• Write below which articles you want to work
• Do it!
• Ask for help here when you're stuck or just looking for opinions
• Suggest what should be the theme of the next month (we may be only three people at this time so your voice is actually taken into account )

Happy editing. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 18:35, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

I want to advise, not as an editor or team member, but as someone who uses Wikipedia. Every article about an artery needs to include what body parts are supplied. I am asking this because I have pain especially on my left shoulder and I want to find out if the area is all covered by the same artery. After wading through article after article stating that this artery is connected to the artery, I finally discovered that the left subclavian artery is the artery supplying the left arm, but I still do not know if it supplies more than just the left arm or not. Given that Wikipedia is meant for ordinary people and not for first-year medical students, realize that ordinary people do not really care about which arteries are connected to which arteries or whether the arteries run above or below certain nerves. Ordinary people want to know which arteries supply blood to which parts of the body. Please contact me and tell me which parts of the body are supplied to the left subclavian artery. thanks. --Bejjinks (talk) 18:51, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making that point, Bejjinks. Jakob, see my comment on #Improvements_of_Circulatory_system. Best. (I hope you feel better Bejjinks!) Biosthmors (talk) 19:13, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

The point is very valid. BTW the left subclavian artery mainly supplies the left arm (including some shoulders), but also the neck and breast. JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:28, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

And the brain, through the vertebral artery. Elennaro (talk) 20:42, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Talk: Labia elongation # Discussion of merge

If any member of this project is not a member of WP: MED or not just watching WP: MED, and since this project needs more attention given to it/activities, I decided to remind its members to the above. related material. Currently, two articles are on the topic because the editor does not change the Labia extension article, feels that the merge/diversion [3] [4] should have been discussed first (specifically whether we should use "extension" as part of the title or "stretch" as part of the title, before he does not redirect, the article is diverted to the Labia stretch article Flyer22 (talk) 12:19, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

Short reply on the talk page. JakobSteenberg (talk) 13:22, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

Source

Hi. I want to participate in this month's project, work on the veins, but I am afraid that I will violate the law of plagiarism or wiki rules. You see, I have only a few anatomical atlas and two textbooks (Gray's anatomy for students and human embryology Larsen) to use. How much can I quote from one book before plagiarism? Can I use anatomical atlas as a reliable source in written text (eg if the image shows a subclavian venous encounter left and leaving the internal jugular vein to be the end point of the thoracic duct, can I verbally say that this is so)? Should I refrain from editing an anatomy article at all if I do not have a better source? Warmest regards, Elennaro (talk) 20:42, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

I hope it's not considered a bad form to answer your own question, but for now, I've decided to be brave and get on with it. If I break any rules anywhere, please let me know so I can be more careful next time. Elennaro (talk) 21:02, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

First of all is not plagiarism if you do not copy the text, but only refers to the information in it (but there can be a fine line to walk and when no plagiarism is subjective). You can see Wikipedia: Plagiarism and Wikipedia: Copyright for example and help. Depending on which edition of the book you're using, I'll be happy to check again if you're in doubt (I have the same book). But do not copy/paste or delete text... like in school (I'm sure you already know this).

Related to atlas at source. I personally prefer text over image, but you can use atlas as a source according to me (for somethings).

Everything. Please, as you say dare, and only ask if in doubt (Wikipedia: Help desk is a good place to get answers to complicated questions). One of the things I think is the biggest pain in... when editing writes in the information from the source, so if this can be the same for you some time; code for Gray's anatomy for students, 2nd edition to use as a reference:

& lt; ref name = GrayStudent & gt; {{mention book | last = Drake | first = Richard L. | last2 = Vogl | first2 = A. Wayne | last3 = Mitchell | first3 = Adam W. M. | year = 2010 | title = Gray's Anatomy for Students | edition = 2 | isbn = 978-0-443-06952-9 | page = 558-560 | accessdate = January 29, 2013}} & lt;/ref & gt ;.

... AND WELCOME! Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 22:23, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

Summing up the facts of the illustrations sounds like WP: OR.-- Taylornate (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree. Illustrations are used to convey facts in textbooks, especially the anatomy. If summing up the fact of an illustration is WP: OR then the reference to Anatomy Netters is WP: OR. WP: OR refers to doing your own primary research and publishing it to Wikipedia. Mike (talk) 16:20, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

Popular pages

I like the idea of ​​having a 'theme' for a month, and then everyone who is working on an article in that theme. It's great and encouraging to hear what other people are doing, even if you're not too far away.

You can get a list of bots made from pages related to popular anatomy like pages on Wikipedia: WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages. Instructions to register are in User: FAQ page Mr.Z-man/Popular. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this will not be possible until after November on the Toolserver page. Other wise features are pretty good. thanks for the notice. JakobSteenberg (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Grave Robbery in the United Kingdom

Hello. I am writing a related article above and have arrived at a flurry. I think there's too much detail on the anatomy to stay in an article that's just about a serious robbery, so I think I'll move some of the history of anatomy into a better home. However, after reading articles such as the 19th Century Anatomical History and the History of anatomy, I am not sure that such a house exists.

I think, therefore, I might be better advised to change the focus of the current article to cover both subjects in more detail, though limited in the 17th-19th century. I'm not sure if it also needs to be renamed, because my interest only explains why the resurrection appears, what everyone thinks about it and why it ends.

Mind? I still have some ways to go, but finally I propose to bring this article to FAC. Parrot of Doom 20:35, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... That's a bit complicated. It depends on how much you want to move. Dissection has a small section about England under history. But if you're talking about moving a larger section of the article, then it might be appropriate to set up a new article under the name The history of surgery (and of course more information can be added to such articles). What do you think of this? There is also a grabbed body. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 19:05, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure tbh. I am only really interested in the aspect of robbing graves, I just wanted to write a comprehensive article that explains everything but that also does not go on the tangent line. Parrot of Doom 10:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If you provide an example of what you want to separate from this article, I will be happy to try to help you if I can. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 12:21, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

• I think I got it done. The article, now called Resurrectionists in the UK, has been in FAC the last few days and seems to run well. Parrot of Doom 12:41, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Articles like mucous membranes and Endometrium

Should we mark such articles as within the scope of this project? Or, for example, is Wikipedia: WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and Wikipedia: WikiProject Biophysics is sufficient for Mucosal membrane articles... and Wikipedia: WikiProject Medicine is sufficient for Endometrium articles? Flyer22 (talk) 16:41, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

With two articles in question I would say that Biophysics is not applicable... and I do not think that MCB will accept it in scope as well.

I am also wondering what kind of article this is. I looked around on the project page and everywhere and could not find an answer... If no guidelines were made so far it might be time to discuss them. I found articles like podocyte and filtration slots as well. One solution is to create a sub task unit label (called microscopic or histological anatomy), as WP Medicine has done for example. Such pulmonology and lung task units are categorized as sub-categories. That way it will be easier to find articles to do if you are only interested in micro-or macro-anatomy. JakobSteenberg (talk) 18:26, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject banner of the first two WikiProjects above (in this section) is currently on the Mukosa membrane article talk page, and the WP: MED banner is currently in the Endometrium article; that's why I ask the second question as I do.

Considering that WikiProject members who mark an article as within the scope of their project mean that the article is appealing to the project or at least to one project member, it would not hurt to mark any of the above articles (in this section) as in scope of this project (and I see that the Podocyte and Filtration slot article has been marked as within the scope of this project). The topics must be included in the category of anatomy. But I decided to ask this project to see if this was the kind of topic he wanted to cover. However, given that the project is not very active, I'm not sure that creating a task force for it is a good idea. Flyer22 (talk) 18:50, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

In conjunction with the WP Med tag. I just added it to the anatomy article when there is something pathological in the article. With endometrium as an example; if it only contains information about anatomy it should not have a Med WP tag, â € <â €

You are right about the task force. If we want to cover it (I think it's natural) we can write explicitly on the project page: We cover micro and macro human anatomy . JakobSteenberg (talk) 19:07, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with anatomical article tagging if there is something pathological in it, but WP: MED has decided that anatomical topics are generally not within their scope; with what they describe, a line or even part about something pathological in an anatomy article is not sufficient enough to mark an anatomy article with a WP: Written banner. I am part of the WP: MED project, as it seems you are now (or long enough), but I do not agree with their (general) outlook on it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:44, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... I just read through the debate you post. In that case; I give up! But can you and I (and anyone watching) agree that in connection with this project, we prefer over-tagging rather than under-tagging? We can always ignore the articles, but they are hard to find if we do not have them (which can be an issue without anatomical tags). JakobSteenberg (talk) 11:21, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, per top, I obviously prefer "over-tagging" when it comes to WikiProject banners. Flyer22 (talk) 12:02, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

Ear

Hi. Three things.

1. Your WikiProject has rated this article as class B. Our criteria for class B say, "This article is appropriately referenced, with an inline quote where necessary, it has a reliable source, and any important or controversial material likely to be challenged quoted. " The Ear Articles have been flagged for lack of reference since 2008. Most articles have no reference at all. Please one of your members review the grade assessment. thanks.
2. You may want to know that I have nominated this article on Wikipedia: Today's_articles_for_improvement/Nominated_articles # Natural_Sciences. I do not think there is another article from this WikiProject currently on the page.
3. I can not help but look at your system to decide the importance of the article seems a bit strange. I can not find the criteria through your project page, but some inclusions/exclusions from Category: Importance of Anatomy Articles seem inconsistent. Subscribers, --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi dweller. I looked at the article and transferred it to the value of C. Thank you for your attention in today's article . You are there does not seem to be a guide for important ratings for articles. I will make a separate post for this in the near future and try to see if we can arrange it. JakobSteenberg (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ace --Dweller (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles "Ear" and TAFI

One of your project articles has been selected for improvement!

Thoughts about the project

I have been thinking about this project and how we can improve it. Currently we have a very high 5.68 workload for project wikiproyek. The solution to this is quite simple; we can use more people who spend more time. I think we already have the last one, but the first seems to be the problem. I have not been part of this project very long, but it seems this is somewhat of a natural state after the public domain assimilation of Gray's Anatomy. Maybe we can try to reach possible new members and thus try to move the project to the next stage.

If you think it would be worth as outreach there might be some things that were worth doing before. Especially to make it more appealing to new members and give them and old members some better tools to use. I have no experience on how to improve a project, but I have some thoughts (I give each number so it's easier to respond):

1) We can begin by determining what we actually do. Are we interested in incorporating micro-anatomy and histology or do we stick with what you can see with the naked eye? User: Flyer22 and I have discussed this briefly. If we as a group have an answer to this question, we should write it on the main project page.

2) Where do we set boundaries between us and Wikipedia: WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia: WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and others? We can see and ask this other project when and when not to add it to the article... And once again state clearly on the main page. This has also been briefly discussed.

3) Define criteria for importance ratings. See Ear discussion. We can make some very general guidelines.

4) Who are we? We have a list of members on the main page that has not been updated for years. I suggested that we create a former member page and move an editor that has not edited yet in X time to that list. That way we can see how much we are. Also we have to move the active members list from where it is now. It's not relevant enough to take so many places before the relevant information underneath. Which brings us also...

5) At the bottom of the main page there is a list of templates. There's a lot more to it than this. We may update this list as it is a very relevant tool.

... Is there any idea in implementing these things? There may be some other great advice on this Plang article on how to revive the project you feel. I know that it may seem like a lot of work (which means less work will be done on the article), but I think it's good to start on things like that if we want to lure new members on the phone. Please tell me how you think. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 23:29, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

Layer Two

The media reported the sixth discovery later from the cornea, discovered by Professor Two and named for him. Can our specialists fill in this red link?

????? (contact me Hasirpad ) 18:30, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Wow, it's fast. When I first wrote this post, the link is still red!

????? (contact me Hasirpad ) 18:31, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Medial ": _ a_disambiguation_page '>" Medial ": disambiguation page

The Wikipedia page titled Medial is a disambiguation page that is mostly about concepts in mathematics and linguistics whose names include that word.

But most of the articles that connect to Medial are about anatomy. They must be connected to the lateral and medial.

Can people here work to fix the problem? (Or did everyone here died a few months ago, as suggested by the history of this page editing?) Michael Hardy (speaking) 16:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we are more comatose than dead. I will change it when I find the article. By the way; Medial (anatomical) and Lateral (anatomy) also leads to the same verse of the term anatomical article of location as the lateral and medial not if it is easier to remember people.

If you are interested, you can view this page if you have not found it yet. Here you can see all articles connected to medial and change them manually one by one for anatomy related articles. There are some surprises. If I get the time, I will change some of the lists. Best Regards, JakobSteenberg (talk) 21:36, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, like JakobSteenberg, I'm still here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

I ran through What's the link here -page for the medial and thinks I've corrected everything... and lateral for good steps. If someone is ready, I'm sure the same problem exists for other terms like inferior, superior, posterior, anterior, ventral, dorsal and so on... JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)/dd>

More phimosis articles and gender identities, including gender identity in other articles

See this section of discussion for this issue that I teach. Flyer22 (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Goal

This project is not dead.

I think it would be helpful to set some goals to help motivate and make progress. Example:

• 5 FAs
• 10 good articles
• 50% of articles in Class C or better

With this ambition, we can do it

Mind? LT90001 (talk) 04:40, August 23, 2013 (UTC)

My missing topic page

I've updated the Missing topic on Anatomy - Skysmith (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk: Distal # Redirect

Some of you may be interested in weighing on Distal # Redirect. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Templates for scapula

I created a navigation template for the scapula (click the [show] button above). I think this template helps students who read articles that fall under Category: scapula. Any comments received! - Is the bee (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the information in this article will be more accessible if most of them are merged into scapula. Does it really make sense for an encyclopedia to have separate articles for every border, fossa, notch, and back of each bone? - Taylornate (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This template is really great, and it can be useful for something like hips, but I can not see that these topics (like the 'notch of scapula') can each article be on the stub or start size and will definitely help make the article which is more comprehensive if everything is combined (common theme among many anatomical articles). Also I'm not sure if there are restrictions on the images in the template, because templates are manually embedded in every page and are not loaded on demand. LT90001 (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I like the template but have to say that I think it's necessary to shortlist it as a default, but it's just to big (but it also means that most readers will not notice it).

In the case of very small subjects such as notch have their own articles; I think they should be. But there is no reason why the scapula article should not contain most of the information about the notch, fossae etc. I think most people who find notch articles are looking for information they forget and just need to see quickly where the notches are or which nerves are passing through and not wider about the scapula. For me personally the good thing about having a separate article is that I can search the Latin term and redirected to the article; if we do not have separate articles that may be a problem. And while you are right that such articles will hardly remain stubs for their coming years is the possibility to add detailed information such as "A bone from a scapula with a depth of x showing a trapezius y in size", "In a horse the same level as a scapula together with foramen "or something like this (I know it may seem unrealistic but I consider Wikipedia as a 100 year project so to say).

With separate articles we can also describe the surrounding structure for the "article structure" perspective; (Again with the Wiki as a 100-year project), such information can make the article easier to "understand" for machines for example. IBM Watson or whatever Wikidata can do in the future. And that's important because then we may not have to remember the many anatomies in the heart as we have today: D

Sorry for the cluttered answer was written quickly. If something does not make sense please ask. Best Regards, JakobSteenberg (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I am considering developing this page further as part of the education assignment in Autumn 2013. If other people are also doing this, please send me a message and let me know soon, so we do not double the initial effort in page development. Stack0711 (talk) 16:03, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

Stack0711, what page? thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls let me know (eg {{U}}) when signing reply, thx 18:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Biosthmors, I will work in the Wolffia tubule. Stack0711 (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Stack0711, thanks for clarifying. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls let me know (eg {{U}}) when signing reply, thx 12:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Working on blastopore

I'm considering developing a further blastopore page as part of an education assignment in Fall 2013. If other people do this too, please send me a message and let me know immediately, so we do not double the initial effort on page development. Heykei1 (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision for Education Assignment: Sox1

Halo,

I am considering developing this page further as part of an education assignment in Autumn 2013. If someone else is working on this page, please send me a message immediately so we do not double the initial effort in developing the page. Ran21 (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ran21, thanks for posting. I am curious. Who is your instructor? Do you have an ambassador? Do you have a Wikipedia page: Courses? Where did you get the idea of ​​quoting your question? thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls let me know (eg {{U}}) when signing reply, thx 19:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

=) Biosthmors (talk) pls let me know (eg {{U}}) when signing reply, thx 19:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ran21, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm looking forward to your edits. LT90001 (talk) 22:38, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

This might be a lesson page: Educational Program: Boston College/Developmental Biology (Fall 2013 2013) --WS (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting peer review

Hi everyone, I have selected the article that I want to upgrade to GA status (duodenal suspensory muscle). I would really appreciate some feedback from some anatomist on how to improve this to GA status. The article is here: Wikipedia: Peer_review/Suspensory_muscle_of_duodenum/archive1. If this works, I hope I can upgrade one or two other small articles to GA status so they can be used as a template for future promotions.

I would appreciate any and all opinions, and hope that I will receive more than one feedback item (some will be greatly appreciated!). Regards, LT910001 (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll see today! Mike (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Mrfrobinson! I have closed the peer review and saved this for the GAN. I still want to hear your feedback, so please study reviews, enter feedback on the talk page, or leave it on my conversation page. Hope to hear from you soon, LT910001 (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

GA nominee

I have nominated duodenal suspensori muscles for GA status. It would be great if a member of this wikiproek review. If this article makes it GA, it will be the 6th article only in this project to achieve GA status. --LT910001 (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I found at least 2 images relating to muscles/ligaments that are public domains. Will upload it (and maybe more) when I can. CFCF (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking back they may not be very high quality, will get back to you if I find something. CFCF (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Images from Treitz 'original description (as seen here may be useful? - WS (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions! I do not think it's the original depiction, but I think I might have accessed it in a journal article, which I'll see if I can search and find (it will happen after Thursday, though). I have not uploaded, more or less because it looks complicated and scary, I do not know about who owns the copyright, and I only have limited time = P. BUT if there is someone else, I would be very grateful... Ã,! There might even be a golden bet at stake...! LT910001 (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File: Gwilym 1913 420.jpg low quality pictures, feel I really should be able to find something better. That damn yellow arrow might make the image above copyrighted, shy. CFCF (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Yeh, that's very unfortunate. Another difficulty is that the image orientation is very strange =/. There is a very good picture documenting anatomical variations here [5], and one that describes two heads, I think, in this article "The development and structure of the duodenal suspensory muscle." Thank you for the help. Have something urgent today/tomorrow, so will respond on Thursday.LT910001 (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: The first link should not be per-proxy (I fix it), or else it is only useful for people at your university.

The problem with both links is that the image is from a journal published after 1923 (or less than 70 years since the author's death) under copyright law (the second article you linked refers to the 1976 article for the image), and even that is not old enough). The alternative is getting permission from the author, but I'm not sure I have time for it.

The image I uploaded dates from 1913, and I think I have found something in the archive published in [6] (from 1907) with 4 different variations (3 men, 1 female). I do not fully like caption on the fourth image, but I will upload it. CFCF (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

- CFCF (talk) 12:13, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you CFCF! I have included the first image in the article. --LT910001 (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

After more searches, I found an old 1913 edition of Gray's Anatomy (instead of 1918 used on wikipedia) that included images for ligaments/muscles I uploaded.

- CFCF (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia