Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

I have nominated Cerebellum for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I stumbled upon the small article fibrous capsule of Glisson while researching pelvic inflammatory disease. It is only referenced in one or two articles and has limited significance outside of this disease and for those interested in hepatic histology. It does link to several pages but this is only because it is included in the abdomen anatomy drop down box at the bottom of several pages. I also believe that fibrous capsule of Glisson is redirected for liver capsule when the two are separate entities that are continuous with each other. Anatomy texts that I have seen it referenced in so far and the TA & TH, designate the fibrous capsule of Glisson as the internal portion of the Liver Capsule that surrounds the portal triad and sinusoids. I suggest:

1. Merging the article Human Liver to provide context for readers
2. Adding an additional subsection to the Human Liver article for liver capsule to recognize it as a continuous but distinct entity

Any objections? HoneyBadger4 (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

A little late (sorry). I think mentioning the capsule in the parent article is good for readers, but I don't support a merge. There's no space constraints and I think it's helpful to have these individual articles... if we were to merge all the articles about ligaments, veins, arteries relating to organs then then main article would be rather big and difficult to read, and there'd be a risk in the future that the information is lost as the article is remodelled. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Tom, I can understand that view. I see how six sentences from one topic and six from another could add up rather quickly. How would you feel about incorporating the fibrous capsule of Glisson article into a newly developed Fibrous Liver Capsule or simply Liver capsule Article? That would allow us to:

1. correct the current misconception that the Liver capsule is the fibrous capsule of Glisson
2. Preserve all of the content from the original article
3. Get the article past the stub class
4. Avoid cluttering the human Liver article

HoneyBadger4 (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm simply alerting this WikiProject to the fact that ‎Wikipedian 2 considers human sex anatomy images to be pornography; see, for example, this edit to the Human body article if you have not seen it already. And this deletion debate on WP:Commons. Flyer22 (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This is total nonsense, maybe we should try to get these images to FI just for fun. They are certainly high enough quality. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hah, a misdirected effort at best ("Images contain private parts" :D). I support 100% useful nude images but there are a huge amount of distasteful images on commons even for me as an anatomy editor. And frankly I am irritated why commons allows so many poor-quality nudes on WikiCommons, it makes it very hard to find useful images that can be used in articles, and some I really do find very distasteful, even as an anatomy editor. You may also be interested in this RfC ([1]). --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Addition of Terminologia Anatomica ID and Foundational Model of Anatomy ID at Wikidata had beem completed. As a reslut, the number of IDs added at Wikidata was about 3,000, for each. You can check this number as "Items processed" in the page linked below. --Was a bee (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• wikidata:Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P1323 for TA ID
• wikidata:Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P1402 for FMA ID

I have proposed to merge the entire set of templates here: {{Human lymphatic vessels}} Into this single template: {{Lymphatic system anatomy}} I invite your comments here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_13#Template:Lymphatic_system_anatomy. Please contribute, as other editors who enter the discussion may not be as anatomically aware. A permalink for posterity is here: [2]. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

TLDR

All medical, anatomy and pharmacological navigation boxes have changed.

The small line of links at the bottom of the navbox has now changed to an "Index of..." with "Description", "Disease" and Treatment" subsections. This will affect almost all medical, anatomy and pharmacology navboxes. As an example, see here:

The links at the bottom ("Index of bones and cartilage...") are what have changed. A full list is at Template:Medicine navs.

Why this has changed

Previously all navboxes have had a line of links to other navboxes embedded within them. An example is here: [3]. Prior to today, that line that was a list of abbreviated terms that linked to relevant templates. This attracted a lot of negative feedback, and a length discussion was held on how to improve them. See here for the RfC: Template_talk:Medicine_navs#Roundtable_discussion_on_legibiltity_and_usability_of_medical_navs. We concluded that it would be better for the embedded navboxes to be expanded in full form. This is much easier for mobile use, links are clearer, and lay users who may not be familiar with the abbreviated forms can now use the templates with greater ease.

What we have changed

We expanded all the abbreviations. We tried very hard to get the right balance between readability for lay audiences, who are not familiar with medical terminology, and technical accuracy. We have tried to use standard terms for all the templates. Further explanation can be found by reading the discussions on Template_talk:Medicine_navs

Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Feedback

Please leave feedback here: Template_talk:Medicine_navs#Feedback_after_roundtable_changes

I saw you all working on the anatomy navboxes/Template:Medicine navs/Draft:Medicine overview of systems, but why wasn't WP:Anatomy and related WikiProjects notified earlier so that their interested members could weigh in as the processes were happening? Flyer22 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In addition to listing this as an RfC, I posted a link to this discussion on WPMED. There had been a previous discussion on the talk page of WPMED in May 2013 and numerous articles of feedback left on the template itself. So I think there's no harm in us deploying this and asking for feedback now, there's nothing set in stone. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Flyer, how come you saw us working and did not know about it? -DePiep (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

DePiep, I'm confused by your question. I did not know about what? As noted above, I knew that the aforementioned discussions were taking place. I was not heavily paying attention to those matters, however. For example, when a topic popped up on my WP:Watchlist, I usually did not go to the topic to see what was being stated. I am busy with a lot of things on and off Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

My Q stems from your post. You knew it happened, so why complain that it was not announced to you? And there is this: this is a WP:MED issue of course, which was notified at WT:MED a month ago. Also individual templates were tagged. None of the navs is tagged being in WP:ANATOMY. Now please tell us what is wrong that is not hairsplitting-in-history? -DePiep (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

My statement was not solely about me, which is why I asked, "but why wasn't WP:Anatomy and related WikiProjects notified earlier so that their interested members could weigh in as the processes were happening?". I clearly was not asking why I wasn't notified. So, yes, I am still confused by your replies to me on this matter. And my watching WP:Med goes along with my comment above about my WP:Watchlist. I have a huge WP:Watchlist, and I reiterate that I am busy with a lot of things on and off Wikipedia. I do not pay close attention to everything that happens at WP:Med. I asked a question. All that you needed to do in response to that question was reply with a single "We appropriately notified potential interested parties" type of comment. And as for anatomy navboxes, of course anatomy navboxes relate to this WikiProject. That's why this WikiProject is now queried for feedback on the matter. That's why I wondered why WP:Anatomy was not specifically notified. Flyer22 (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

But looking above at #Removal of Gray's Anatomy numbers from Anatomy navboxes, I am reminded that this WikiProject had decent notification of the fact that changes were being made at the anatomy navboxes. Flyer22 (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The papillary duct article is a stub that is largely redundant. Most of the infomaiton in it is covered in the articles collecting duct system and Bellini duct carcinoma. The only unique content is a small portion of the structure section and the eponym history. Both of these could easily be incorporated into the subsection on the collecting duct system article. I propose:

1. Merging the articles
2. Updating the anatomy of the urinary system drop down box to contain collecting duct system article

Any thoughts or objections?HoneyBadger4 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for merging redundant stubs, at the very least when it's very unlikely they will be significantly expanded. Go ahead HoneyBadger4. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

While I still believe it should be merged, I will attempt to edit the article first. As Tom suggested there is no need to clutter the main article and some additional information may be added to the stub. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made all all changes that I intend to on this page except for citations and a TA number. I would greatly appreciate any feed back on content or readability for lay readers. I was also considering adding unique effects of hormones on protein synthesis in local cells.

Also, does anybody know how to add a TA section to the identifiers of an info box template? HoneyBadger4 (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay, HoneyBadger4. Thanks a lot for your changes. To insert a 'TA' you just need to add "TA|" to the parameter section. Click the edit button on Lymphatic system to see an example. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

HELP PLEASE: I have spent more time than I am willing to admit trying to figure out how to add TA numbers to the anatomy info boxes. I have looked at other wikipedia pages with existing TA numbers in an infobox. However, when I select edit code I can't find a TA parameter in the infobox. Likewise if I attempt to add a TA parameter to the info box code it does not appear when viewed. Considering my lack of experience I assume I am writing something incorrectly. If one of the more technically savvy editors could spare a moment I would really appreciate it. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@HoneyBadger4: The other infoboxes might get the TA-ID from Wikidata. On en-wiki this involves the module Module:Wikidata, which in turn is used in the template of the infobox. On en-wiki it is often not visible where the data comes from when editing the article page. On de-wiki each infobox line that is pulled from Wikidata is visible when editing the page (e.g. |TA = FETCH_WIKIDATA). You could ask at the module page for a more visible approach. Your current problem could be solved by looking at the Wikidata-item of the Wikipedia page and adding the TA there. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been browsing through the list of featured media under WP:MED [4]. Quite a lot relate to anatomy and could be used in our articles. Feel free to add to the list below (including high-quality not FM that could be nominated or used), I'm going to go through most of them and as I go add them to our scope and see if they can be used in some more articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

These are great images indeed, I'm adding them to the Resources page so they don't get lost in the archive, I hope it's OK ;). Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

FM

• 
  Insertion of the SO muscle.
• 
  Circulatory system
• 
  CT brain
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

FM Images needing attention

The images below are labelled but the labels do not correspond to what we use as article titles, which could be somewhat confusing for readers:--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

FM candidates and other high-quality images

• 
  "Three Major Capillary Types"
• 
  Muscles of the neck
• 
  Brain
• 
  Brain 2
• 
  Brain 3
• 
  Blood vessels
• 
  Artery
• 
  Respiratory tract
• 
  Respiratory epithelium
• 
  Bones of the orbit

Issues

File:Diagrama de los pulmones.svg

1. A featured image that may need delisting (see right). Delist request is here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Diagram of lungs --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
2. The 'rater' tool doesn't support adding 'FM' status to an article... will see if I can get this changed --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Have also proposed delisting the three skeleton images above: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Images of the human skeleton --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the three skeleton images; do not delete them! They use TA-terms which are useful for many wikis e.g. German. It is quite normal to use Commons for images for different language wikis (an good example of this is that the Danish wiki only have 2 uploaded images while the rest is on Commons). Instead the images should be altered so we have a copy with English terms. JakobSteenberg (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I definitely don't intend for them to be deleted!! I am just requesting that they are "delisted", which means that they are no longer considered to be a featured image here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Then I don´t really have an opinion on the matter :D JakobSteenberg (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated this image, of bones of the orbit, for featured image status. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination page: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Orbital bones -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Shame they were so quick to draw judgement, as it is a good image. Though blue and purple are probably better than calling the colors aqua etc. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Ergh, I think I will wash my hands of future "Featured image" involvement. What is worse is the delist attempt I made for the skeleton images Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Images of the human skeleton. Apparently an image that is not only has visual and label problems (eg lines that overlap, inconsistent labelling) but is technically incorrect is still fit to be called "featured". Sigh. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow. that's a shame. Over the past year I've amassed a small collection of books to scan and am awaiting a borrowed scanner from Wikimedia Sweden so we're definately going to have replacements for those images within short. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Great, there are many articles that need high-quality images. As alwsys I'll be glad to help out when you get them up. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, you know we have this right (I can likely find a better scan):

-- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeh I do, I think both are used in some articles. I like the way that the image is stylised, although to a non-Anatomy editor the colours are probably quite unhelpful and may even seem arbitrary. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Like I just told Visviva, I first came across the Sexual difference article by seeing this edit in WP:STiki. Looking at this link, Visviva redirected the term to Sex differences in humans, and then decided to create the Sexual difference article. From my viewpoint, Visviva's creation of the article is unneeded WP:Content forking. We already have the Sex differences in humans and Sex and gender distinction articles for this content; we don't need another article to address what Visviva added on the topic. Since WP:Anatomy recently got through working out how to cover sexual differentiation and sex difference topics on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 7#Sexual differentiation articles), I decided to bring this matter here for more opinions. Flyer22 (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Paraphrasing from my response on my talk: my article may be short, but this is a huge and highly encyclopedic topic. I don't actually think that "sexual difference" is commonly used as a term for anatomical differentiation -- vide Google Books -- but if there really is some risk of confusion, can we perhaps move this article to Sexual difference in philosophy or something similar, and make a dab page at Sexual difference and/or Gender difference? -- Visviva (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This is Visviva's full reply at Visviva's talk page.

I stated, "In addition to philosophy, the terms sexual difference and gender difference refer to topics that are covered by the Sex differences in humans article, and that article has a Medicine, Physiology, Psychology and Sociology section; the Sociology section has subsections. Of course, that article deals with normative aspects. And a Philosophy section to address your content could easily be added to that article. I'm not in favor of unneeded WP:Content forking or creating unneeded WP:Spinout articles. Per WP:Content fork, we should strive to keep aspects of a topic in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles...unless necessary. And like WP:Spinout states, there is no need for haste. A WP:Spinout article should ideally only be created when needed; I don't see that there is yet a need for a Sexual difference in philosophy article. That topic can fit fine in the Sex differences in humans article until, if ever, a Sexual difference in philosophy article is needed. Look at the other topics in that article that don't have their own Wikipedia articles. And when it comes to redirects and disambiguation pages, WP:Primary topic is a good guideline to follow." Flyer22 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I also stated, "On a closer look: All the subsections in the Sex differences in humans article have a Wikipedia article for those topics; so I struck through part of my post above. Keeping the fact that those topics have Wikipedia articles in mind, creating a Sexual difference in philosophy article could be fine, but your content is barely more than a WP:Stub; in fact, it can be categorized as a WP:Stub. If we are going to have a Sexual difference in philosophy article, the topic should still be mentioned in the Sex differences in humans article (WP:Summary style). And then the terms sexual difference and gender difference should redirected to the Sex differences in humans article. Gender difference previously redirect there, as it should per WP:Primary topic, until you changed it. Anyway, I'll repeat this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Sexual difference article, so that we can continue the discussion in one place." Flyer22 (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the changed redirect from Gender differences to the human article. Not only does the human article make reference to this, but there's a difference between sex and gender; and moreover, 'gender' is something mainly discussed with reference to humans. But I think a discussion is helpful. Will expand further soon. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of existing situation:

• Sex difference, Sex differences --> Sexual dimorphism
• Sexual difference
• Gender difference --> Sex differences in humans

Comments:

• Important topic that deserves coverage, the question is where?
• Not ideal to have Sex difference and Sexual difference pointing to different articles
• 'Sex' instead of 'Sexual' seems to be the preferred adjective.
• Should Sexual difference be plural?
• Question is... why can't the desired material be covered in Sex differences in humans? Anyone is free to edit, and like Flyer implies, it's confusing to have multiple articles with very similar titles pointing to different places, and it seems that the intended scope of the "Sexual difference" article is exactly the same as "Sex differences". --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we're saying the same thing in opposite ways, more or less. :-) "Sexual difference" seems to be used almost exclusively for the philosophical/psychoanalytic concept as developed by various poststructuralist feminists and subsequently adopted by various thinkers in various fields. The preferred term for anatomical and behavioral differences between the sexes is indeed "sex difference(s)". So sexual difference and sex differences are fairly distinct things (though also related). To muddy matters a little further, "gender difference" can seemingly be used in either way (since gender doesn't have a coordinate term like sex/sexual), which probably explains why it was a preexisting redirect and this was not. (But coming from a gender-as-social-construct background, if I'd clicked on gender difference -- even if I wasn't expecting the philosophical concept -- I would have been expecting something more like gender role than sex differences in humans.) Different users from different backgrounds are likely to have very divergent expectations of what a "sex/sexual/gender difference" article is going to be about, anyway -- hence, I wonder if the following might suit:

• Move sexual difference to sexual difference (philosophy) -- this should keep its scope appropriately contained (and I have been guilty of muddying that scope, which I will try to fix)
• Create a dab page at sexual difference or gender difference with options including sex differences in humans, sexual difference (philosophy), gender role, etc.
• Redirect whichever one isn't dabbified to the other.

Does that seem sensible? -- Visviva (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If at all possible, before we discuss what should happen specifically here, could we first see if we can catalogue all the articles relating to Gender studies and put them in a template for navigation? So far we have {{Sex differences in humans}} for biological differences and {{Gender and sexual identities}} for different identities, but so far that I can see, nothing that actually relates to gender studies. Once we get that template done we might get a clearer picture of things like article naming and the current state of things. If we spend a day or two doing that, would that be OK? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As an afterthought to this, if at all possible I think we should move this discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies, as I feel that may better interact with relevant editors. Flyer22, Visviva would that be OK? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: I have created a discussion on that project about creating the template and understanding the lay of the land. That discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Creating_Template:Gender_studies. I hope we can hold off this discussion until the template is fleshed out a bit, and then continue. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Visviva, while sex difference and sexual difference are sometimes used distinctly because feminists state "sexual difference", they are also used interchangeably and feminist state "sex difference" just as much when speaking of and/or disputing the sex and gender differences between human males and human females. This clear from the Gender article and the aforementioned Sex and gender distinction article. And, like I stated above and like you acknowledge, the terms sex difference and gender difference are commonly used interchangeably. I don't understand why you are pressing for another article about the sex and gender differences between human males and human females instead of expanding on the topic in one of the existing articles. Expanding on it in the Sex differences in humans article or in the Sex and gender distinction article, which already addresses feminist points of views, would be perfectly fine. Again, we should only create a separate article when needed. The content you have added does not need a separate article. By having that article, we are unnecessarily causing our readers to go to a different article when they can read about it one of the existing articles, or have already read about an aspect of it in one of the existing articles. As a compromise, I can agree to a Sexual difference (philosophy) article, but it is not ideal. And ideally the terms sexual difference and gender difference should redirect to an existing article covering these topics; right now, that article is the Sex differences in humans article. We don't need a Gender differences in humans article because this is already covered by the Gender article, the Sex and gender distinction article and the Sex differences in humans article. Sure, if going by the sex and gender distinction, the Sex differences in humans article should be solely about biological differences, but, as that article shows, it's true that the terms sex and gender are commonly used interchangeably. The Sex and gender distinction article also acknowledges this interchangeability.

LT910001, it's understandable that sex difference redirects to the Sexual dimorphism article, especially since sex difference does not only refer to humans. Sexual difference also does not only refer to humans, but it is more tied to humans than sex difference is. So it should perhaps continue to redirect to the Sex differences in humans article, or be turned into a disambiguation page. As for opening up the discussion to more people, I think it would be best to invite WikiProject Gender Studies to this discussion. But we should discuss the template matter there. Flyer22 (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Visviva, thanks for restoring the Sexual difference redirect and moving your addition to User:Visviva/Sexual difference. I ask that you keep what I stated in my "04:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)" post above in mind, and, that when you think more on the topic, consider posting about it here in this section. Hopefully, by the time you are ready to move on with this matter, this section is still here on this talk page. Another article that addresses the philosophical topic of sex and/or gender differences is the Social construction of gender difference‎ article, which, as noted on its talk page, needs a lot of fixing up. Flyer22 (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A wide-ranging cleanup effort of many navboxes under WPMED and WPANT is planned. Discussions include regarding titles, colours and more. If interested please contribute here. Also feel free to identify any navboxes under the scope of WPMED that need some cleanup here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@CFCF you spoke a while ago about "notability guidelines" for anatomy articles. The more I think about it, the more useful I think such guidelines are, particularly for offering some guidance for what is suitable to be merged and what isn't. Have you made any drafts? I think having such a guideline would be very useful. First questions first... where would such a guideline below, and does one already exist? Any suggestions for draft wording from other users?--Tom (LT) (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't found any guidelines for this or medicine articles, though WP:Notability (specifically section WP:PAGEDECIDE) says: editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. I agree that some articles are needlessly fragmented and we need to figure a way to improve readability. I think some kind of "Anatomical landmarks of X" page would prevent those short articles to become permanent stubs, as there isn't much to say about the smallest features of a bone, for example. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea, especially for bones and things with many different noted features in different articles. The trouble is striking a balance between ease of maintenance and encouraging edits from future users, and ensuring that users who search for something can get the answer in a short period of time. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I wrote a short proposal then promptly forgot about it. I'll try to dig it out. Been quite busy with a number of other exiting but time-consuming tasks, expect me back soon. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This is probably one of the worst "Top" priority articles in our scope, in my opinion. In addition, this is such a 'basic' article in terms of anatomy it is disappointing to come across it in this state. Although the anatomy section is well fleshed-out, there is a severe dearth of content in things like clinical signiicance (disease, surgery, specialities), society and culture, and other animals section.

I invite all editors to contribute a few relevant sentences so we can get this fundamental article to be a better quality.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I think one of the problems is the numerous definitions of what the arm is. I've got a CC-BY source that we can borrow from here:

• Bones of the Upper Limb
• Pectoral girdle
• Muscles of the Pectoral Girdle and Upper Limbs

What definition do you suggest the article use? The problem with using the common definition is that we might be bordering or WP:OR when we adapt all the terminology as very few anatomy books use the common definition? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I guess that's a good point. However for most lay users the arm would be the thing from the shoulder down, and I think it's missing some information. Perhaps I can ping some relevant WikiProjects. Perhaps 'military history' for social and cultural (some aspects anyway), 'medicine' for clinical significance and 'animals' for expansion of 'other animals'. Will get around to this... --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I also noticed that there is a page for Forearm, but Upper arm is a redirect. But an entry for upper arm exists in 6 other wikis. The relevant Wikidata items are: arm, forearm, upper arm. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And to make things more confusing, we have human leg and leg but human arm and arm redirect to the same article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

From what I have seen this is general problem in all wikis. From a Wikidata perspective it would be better to offer a general "what is a leg?" article (e.g. Leg (biology)) which should discuss legs in all lifeforms and their purpose, evolution, similarities, differences, usage (etc...). All other legs (human leg, dog leg, spider leg) should store more specific information. But I think it is best practice for the human anatomy to get the most simple page title (e.g. leg). --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree, and time will probably play a role in fixing this issue. Maybe even WikiProject Animal anatomy. Most of the time the problem lies in the lack of content, so we can separate pages when there is enough content, but it's not useful if we split pages when both pages will end up being small, or the parent page ("Leg") is disproportionately small. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Count me in once this is solved, the clinic section needs a lot of expansion. Personally I'd use the textbook definition of arm, as it is more accurate and easier to maintain, altough the distinction between it and the forearm should be noted in the article. I may be overly biased towards human anatomy however. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to worry, we often use WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy to differentiate between humans and animals. We should definitely note relevant distinctions in the article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

One radical solution would be to completely forego an arm article and have:

• Upper limb
• Upper arm
• Forearm

Having Arm as a redirect or disambiguation page (would actually be a WP:Set index). While I tend to favor the anatomical terminology I feel it strays too far from the general understanding in this case. That said as I never studied anatomy in English, but learned the latin definition of brachium/sv:arm as the entire upper limb I may also be biased, just the other way. As for the use of human in the article titles, that should be removed, but will take time. Maybe an RfC is in order? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Am not in favour of having a disambiguation for this, particularly when the subject matter is very widely known. I really don't think there's much ambiguity in the lay definition of "arm". There may be some about precisely where it ends, but I think most lay readers will have some expectations about the page "arm". --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

An other alternative is to move the Upper limb article to Arm, moving Arm to Upper arm. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Have proposed a merge of Upper limb and Arm. Very confusing for readers to have these two topics. I think there's a compelling reason to have it in one place, then we can fix up the article from there.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with a merge of Upper limb to Arm, as it is confusing for readers. I think we should include both cultural (shoulder->hand) and anatomical (shoulder->elbow) definitions of it in Arm, with proper references and under different headers, dedicating an "Anatomy" (or equivalent) section to the structures that form the upper arm. Then summarize each one in the lead clearly pointing their distinction with a link to Forearm, which should be dedicated mainly to the anatomical structures that form it, also clarifying in it that is a part of the (cultural) arm and not of the (anatomical) arm. I can see both definitions covered in the same article, as they widely overlap (half an arm actually :P) --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: To clarify, I think the merges should be Upper limb→Arm←Upper arm. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been working through our template group and come upon these:

• {{Human cell types derived primarily from ectoderm}}
• {{Human cell types derived primarily from endoderm}}
• {{Human cell types derived primarily from mesoderm}}

Can any users enlighten me as to (1) why these are relevant? and (2) propose a better name, one that might better convey their scope and purpose to lay readers? --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Tom (LT) - thanks for finding these, I think they are really relevant and have added them to Human embryogenesis and Germ layer and Cellular differentiation. There was a 'same' template for cell types from mesoderm listed on Germ layer page with the template -Germ layer-. Thank you muchly--Iztwoz (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. But would you be able to think of a better title? I do not think "Human cell types derived primarily from mesoderm" conveys the purpose of the boys (ie. why couldn't it just be contained within 'mesoderm'? Why does every article need to be linked?) moreover (2) what title would be more accessible to lay readers? --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tom. I think these are nice templates to have, not for their ability to classify types of cells but to provide an insight into human embryogenesis, which is not all well covered in the encyclopedia. They need some rearrangement, as there are cells that don't belong in some templates but that can be fixed. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be a clear substitute of words like ectoderm—they are not really used in everyday talk, altough the name can use some rewording, off the top of my head I guess 'Ectoderm derivatives' or just taking 'Human' and 'primarly' out (as in Cells derived from ectoderm) are ok, if I can think of something better I'll tell you. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Or what about 'Germ layer cells from ectoderm' --Iztwoz (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've retitled the cells something I hope is mostly accurate that lay readers can also read. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess my underlying question is, what navigable value do these have? Perhaps they should be converted to tables? I just don't think many users will go to, for example, C cell or D cell and want to navigate to the next ecto/endo/mesodermally derived cell. In my mind this should already be mentioned in three places: Firstly, on the articles about mesoderm, endoderm and so on. Secondly, within the "Development" section on each article, and thirdly, within the "Precursor" box within the infobox. So is it necessary to have this as a navbox (ie something which users will choose to navigate Wikipedia by?) --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

While I find it unlikely anyone will find it useful at C cell (which is a fully developed/differentiated cell) I can see the benefit of having it on articles on developing cell/tissue types such as Interstitial cell or Endoderm, Ectoderm, Mesoderm etc. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess you make a good point, it is useful to some extent to have these. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking more in depth I would like to remove some of the indexes at the bottom of the templates. The connection to various diseases/cancers are relevant, but linking to anatomy is less so. Any suggestion on what would be a good replacement? Even worse some of the links such as the one for Bone Procedures go to templates, not article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please have a look and contribute on the talk page. I fully support removing any irrelevant embedded navboxes from templates, but I think when you see the talk page you'll understand why I'm asking you to centralise there :P. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been sort of avoiding delving in too deep with this because I thought, "they're good editors, they'll come up with a good solution", but seeing the extent of the work I realize I could just help out. I'll try to make room in my shedule to read up on it. :) -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, we could use some extra eyes. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Bad templates

The following templates are severely deficient: Linked from {{Human_cell_types_derived_primarily_from_mesoderm}}

• {{Bone and cartilage navs}}
• {{Urinary system navs}}
• {{Vascular navs}}

-- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, there are like 30 more linked in the documenation and none of them link to articles, only to more templates.

Are these being used, and is there any reason they link to more templates instead of articles? Are they not meant for use in articles, in which case we need to remove them from the endo-, ecto-, mesoderm templates? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC):

• Template:Medicine navs(edit talk links history) - Overview page

I've been involved in discussions with other users regarding these templates for the last two months, Template talk:Medicine navs here. A short summary is that these replaced the unreadable bottom bars previously. Have a look and comment at the page itself, discussions are still ongoing and more eyes are always appreciated. We're also slowly going through existing templates to clean them up (a list is on the page). Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's breathtaking to see how these templates evolved from something somewhat readable at their start to the state they were before you guys took this over. I haven't started to read the talk page yet but let me ask something Tom, has it ever been proposed that the index nav linked to articles in summary style or lists pages instead of templates? --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There was a user who suggested it. I think the navs do offer an interesting overview of a topic. The benefit of linking to templates is that it is more maintainable and that there is a limited set. If we were to link to summary style articles there would be a lot more links, or if we created them the effort required to create and maintain such a set would be substantial. Have a look + read and then contribute on the page, I hope we can centralise discussion there so it doesn't get too branched. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I'll take a look and see if I can catch up. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Large number of significant historical anatomy images uploaded here recently. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow. 100,000 over images! Tom, Thank you notification. --Was a bee (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ping to Tobias1984, Was a bee, DePiep and possibly other users who are technologically adept and know what's going on with Wikipedia's innards. We have more than 5,000 articles under our scope. Many of these articles have information in their infobox (a number relating to Gray's Anatomy, Foundational model of anatomy and so on). Many of our WP:NAVBOXes as mentioned above also have a Terminologia anatomica, Terminologia Embryologica and Terminologia Histologica numbers attached. I was wondering if we could:

1. See which properties are available in Wikidata, and which need to be added
2. When properties aren't in Wikidata, add them
3. For these properties, use a bot to transfer data from articles and navboxes to Wikidata

For properties, there are those:

1. Already added. That information is here: [7]. Four properties: "anatomical location", "part of", "Terminologia Anatomica 98" and "Foundational Model of Anatomy ID"
2. Currently being requested. That information is here: [8]. As of today (2nd Jan 2015) that's the TE and TH numbers
3. Not yet requested. That includes:
   1. Gray's Anatomy number
   2. Neurolex ID

This relates to a previous discussion about Gray's Anatomy above and on the main navboxes page, but I think that's putting the cart before the horse and we should get Wikidata going first. Have I missed anything above so far? --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Pages which I know are..

• Existing properties which related to anatomy can be found here (wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject_Medicine/Properties#Anatomy).
• Although I haven't read all of them, some anatomy related discussions can be found here (wikidata:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Medicine).
• Bot requests are done at this page (wikidata:Wikidata:Bot requests).

--Was a bee (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, they're some very helpful links. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Some preliminary notes.

Useful links: {{Infobox anatomy}}, what links to (~4500) (did or will the dozen-merge happen, eg {{Infobox bone}} → {{Infobox anatomy}}?)

These templates are all instances of "Infobox anatomy" (if you look at the code), so they're likely included in the 4,500 --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the relationship between medicine navboxes (600) and anatomy navboxes (mentioned above, #Notification -- anatomy navboxes have changed)? Are all anatomy navboxes included in those 600? I think we need the complete set of anatomy navigation listed somehow, without medicine. In other words, Anatomy should be independent of medicine (stand alone, as WP:ANATOMY is). Would be a good start to work from (that's a todo list).

No relation. They're both separate infoboxes. Anatomy ones have a lot of unique identifiers in them (TA, TE, TH, GA, NeuroLex ID). There is sometimes some crossover (MeSH) but they're distinct. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Misunderstanding: not infoboxes, but navboxes. The 600 Med navs are flooded with anatomy topics. What is the navigation system for anatomy? Would be very helpful. Next to a list (category?) of all 10,000 articles. -DePiep (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The data structure in wikidata (d:) is (outdated by now):

d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Medicine/Properties#Anatomy (wikidata, as of 09:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC))
Title	ID	Data type	Description	Example	Inverse
anatomical location	P927	Item	where in the body does this anatomical feature lie	(retina bipolar cell) anatomical location (Inner nuclear layer)	–
part of	P361	Item	subject is a part of that object	(Hypothalamus) part of (Diencephalon)	–
Terminologia Anatomica 98	P1323	String	Terminologia Anatomica (1998 edition) human anatomical terminology identifier	(tibia) Terminologia Anatomica 98 (A02.5.06.001)	–
Foundational Model of Anatomy ID	P1402	String	unique identifier for human anatomical terminology	(parietal lobe) Foundational Model of Anatomy ID (61826)	–

One can improve the table and add links here, but this table must be a copy of the wikidata model.

So the aim is to copy/move data from enwiki into wikidata (not the other way around). I think we need to develop a more precise process description.

-DePiep (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Approach. Before moving data into wikidata, we must get the structures right & complete. That is:

1. {{infobox anatomy}} should be the one, see Archive:#11_different_infobox-templates. Variants like {{Infobox bone}} must be merged into this one (maybe use |type=bone).

2. We should only use data that is in {{infobox anatomy}}. eg, if part of is wikidata, it should be in the infobox; one can not expect a bot or an editor to search & find that in the article text.

3. The data model for anatomy (table above) must be complete. No use to add some data, and in a year having to revisit eachj article to add another few properties.

4. Maybe contact other language wikis who are active in this? Or do we meet those exactly at wikidata?

5. We need some friends at wikidata. Getting the model right requires quite some knowledge of d:, including the proposal/development process.

-DePiep (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Great to have the discussion going already! I won't be able to respond intensively in the next week or so but I'll try and respond once every day or two. One thing I have to mention is both infobox and navbox data are capable of being transferred (not just infobox). And I completely agree with what you state. Infoboxes -- easy, we will be grabbing from parameters and replcing with reference to the wikidata, presumably. Navboxes, like you state maybe we can use a parameter like 'above' to display them. Some responses below: --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

1. All these are instances of infobox anatomy, so I think this is already taken care of.

2. Agree. One need only skim through Infobox anatomy to find missing parameters (TA, TH, TE, NeuroLex, GA subject, GA page). I believe "Part of" can be used to represent eg the parent of nerve and arterial branches and brain structures.

4. Interwiki language communication sounds quite complex. The TA, TH and TE numbers are international standards, but not for GA. I don't think there are active Anatomy WPs like our one in other languages, at least not in my sporadic travels through the interwikis.

sign Tom (LT), 11:23.

re re 1: those 12 anatomy infoboxes must be guaranteed be the same. Also in coming years. A maintenance job added.

re re 2: OK, but not 'skim through', but 'make it an absolutely good data value, corresponding unambiguously with the wikidata definition'. If that is not safe before, we'll regret it for the rest of wikipedia's life. Flesh out issues before, not when encountered.

re re 4: I only noticed an italian addition by accident. Anyway, be prepared to spend a lot of talking over there. We'll have to convince say frwiki's there, cannot impose.

re (minor) "in the next week or so" - week? lol? Think 'year or so' for this. It's a process, and a lot of stuff needs to be developed in talking.

Note that I am not familiar with this into-wikidata process. But I say, getting the data model right is the main & first job. -DePiep (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• {{List of anatomy templates}} is what I was looking for: anatomy navigation overview. -DePiep (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Infobox anatomy}}

Useful links:

Template:Infobox anatomy(edit talk links history)

d: data model

Useful links:

d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Medicine/Properties#Anatomy

Hi all! I just created some more anatomy properties at d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Medicine/Properties#Anatomy. Neurolex-ID is in the table "Neurology" below. - Also: It would be good if all of you sign up at d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Medicine#Participants. If you sign up I can use "ping project" to alert members of important discussions (e.g. new properties, bot requests). - In case you are interested how data can be used on Wikipedia you can look at e.g. this edit to the disease infobox ([9]). - Let me know if I can help with anything else. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

lol that does not take a proposal process? If we have to change that when data is in there, I'll never look at you again. I note that in there too, anatomy is considerend a subtopic of medicine. -DePiep (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Shall we list some five or ten anatomy articles as pilot? -DePiep (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep: The proposals go into an archive (in this case: d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/28#ICD-10-PCS). String-datatype properties are pretty simple and we have a lot of experience with them, so the creation goes pretty fast. - I don't understand your second comment about changing data. - I think your third comment is about the current organization of Wikidata Wikiprojects? The tables are just arbitrary and mostly made by me. But I encourage anybody who wants to fork anything into a new page. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's all fine with me, it's just I expected that a proposal process was required at d: (consistency, definition, ...). My 2nd remark is that, once the data model is filled with data (individual anatomy article data), it is nigh impossible to change (correct) the data model. I meant to say: be sure that the data structure in wikidata is perfect before filling/using it. My 3rd: yes Wikidata Wikiprojects versus {{Medicine navs}}, (anatomy being independent versus being a sub-set of medicine). I fear that every once and a while a medical issue enters this anatomy topic (here in navigation & listings, at d: in data definitions in med and anatomy already related). Such an intrusion can be about a similar-defined/overlapping/ambiguous property. (maybe that can be solved by 'asking' the d:Medicine properties level: "any objection or issue with defining the property Q123 for anatomy this way?"). Note that I am from the outside, guess you can trust your own judgement (& don't spend all your time answering me). I think the proposal to list 10 pilot articles here is clear. -DePiep (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a good point. But Wikidata is also a lot more flexible than normal databases when changing the data model. Each property is independent of the others and can be modified at any time. - Test articles would be a good idea. For example the infobox at Subclavius muscle also contains things like the origin and connecting nerves, which could easily be stored in Wikidata as item-datatype properties. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds OK. Since the d:model is getting robust, I expect our {{Infobox anatomy}} should follow (=have the same data elements; ie parameter+definition). Now I'll stop keeping you from doing all this ;-). -DePiep (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep: No problem. The best thing for Wikidata is, if many people understand it and know where it might be helpful. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Tobias1984, for me to get d:involved: can you give a good example of a (scientific) topic that is quite far in wikidata-ification? (properties complete, data in, data out even; discussions, process, ... to be studied). -DePiep (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep: I don't think that there is a topic that fulfils all the things you listed. Wikidata is developing quickly, but even today anybody using it, is somewhat of an early adopter. The best Wikidata can do at the moment is store identifiers (such as TA) and those can be displayed in Wikipedia (with limitations). But I think that that is good. If we move slow, we don't make too many mistakes and people can get used to the idea of Wikidata. So we reduce maintenance tasks step by step and editors can spend more time writing and editing. As I said above the inclusion of TA ([10]) works well and we could do that for more identifiers. The best way to get a feeling for Wikidata is probably to look at the items of some of your favourite topics. You can also use the alternative interface Reasonator (e.g. https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=190564). --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Enough in there to browse, for me. -DePiep (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Is there any way we can do this in piecemeal? I don't think I have the mental energy to grasp the entire system at once (or the time, soon). But I think I can certainly grasp eg. Get TH done, ask for importing all TH data, and so forth. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tobias1984 I can't help but notice in the Wikidata "Neurology" section a list of things that actually relate to anatomical structures of the brain, not the practice of neurology, so I've renamed it. Secondly "neurological function" is probably just an instance of "Anatomical function" which all anatomical structures have (as attachments, blood supply, nerves to this or that part, and so on). --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@LT910001: Thanks for fixing that. The page is not super-organized because there is currently just too much going on at Wikidata. - I also think its a good idea to work on the existing properties first before we request any more. The next thing would be making a list of all the places where the data of the new properties is used, so a bot can import them. Requests are made at d:Wikidata:Bot_requests and you can use {{Ping project|Medicine}} on Wikidata to alert the members of a new bot request. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Great, I agree we can try and work on the current definitions / properties and import them, with one exception. The only 'major' properties missing are the Gray's anatomy subject and page number, which are on a significant number of infoboxes. Once that's done we'll mostly have things that are inconsistently entered or localised to infobox variants (eg things relating to muscles, embryology etc.)--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: I have proposed the subject number in Gray's Anatomy 1918 be stored in Wikidata here: [11]. I've updated the discussion above (#Removal_of_Gray.27s_Anatomy_numbers_from_Anatomy_navboxes) accordingly. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Properties

I'm creating a subtopic to keep track of proposed properties and their status, and to discuss eg. their names or worthiness as Wikidata properties relating to infoboxes:--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• {{Infobox muscle}} and {{Infobox ligament}}:
  • "Attachment" (for muscle, ligament) and "Destination/Origin" (for muscle, ligament)
• {{Infobox embryology}}:
  • Embryological "Descendant" (for embryological things), perhaps by another name.
  • Embryological carnegie stage (not sure about the worthiness here)

Wikidata progress

• • Existing properties on Wikidata: d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Medicine/Properties#Anatomy
  •  Done d:Wikidata:Bot_requests#Request_for_EN_Anatomy_bot_to_grab_infobox_data

• TA (3047 statements: Can we estimate if that is all of them on en-wiki?; Also: Isn't this transcluded already?)
  • Query: http://tools.wmflabs.org/autolist/autolist1.html?q=CLAIM[1323]
  •  Properties in Wikidata  Imported to Wikidata  Property transcluded in infobox
• Gray's Anatomy subject (2820 statements)
  • Query: http://tools.wmflabs.org/autolist/autolist1.html?q=CLAIM[1698]
  •  Wikidata property  Imported to Wikidata  Property not transcluded in infobox
• Gray's Anatomy page (0 statements)
  • Query: N/A
  •  Wikidata property  Imported to Wikidata  Property not transcluded in infobox
• TH (6 statements)
  • Query: http://tools.wmflabs.org/autolist/autolist1.html?q=CLAIM[1694]
  •  Properties in Wikidata  Imported to Wikidata...  Property transcluded in infobox
• TE (1 statement)

• • Query: http://tools.wmflabs.org/autolist/autolist1.html?q=CLAIM[1693]
  •  Properties in Wikidata  Imported to Wikidata...  Property transcluded in infobox

Also known as property

Hi. I am a little late to the party here and got a little confused reading the above thread since I know very little about Wikidata, so forgive me if my question is out of place. When importing TA, TH, TE or the infobox parameter "Latin" is it possible to automatically also move them to the "also known as"-?property?/field on Wikidata so people will be apple to search using these terms? Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@JakobSteenberg: At least for some items and some languages this has already been done, for example : WD item for adrenal gland has the latin name in German and some other languages. We could request for a bot to do the same for English. But searching should already work, because the search looks through all the languages. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not know that. Thank you @Tobias1984:. That is a great step in the right direction but I still think a bot would be a good idea for a couple of reasons:

• Male intuition tells me that there the English Wikipedia contains more anatomy articles that any other Wikipedia. After four failed attempts I found Auricular branch of posterior auricular artery which does not have a corresponding article in a different language and hence can not be found searing on the Latin term.
• There could be cases where all non-English articles use a different name e.g. an article about the heart is properly name "heart" in German, Italian and Chinese and not the Latin "cor" (not the best example in the world but I hope it does the trick).
• There are also structures with multiple Latin terms e.g. femur where one could imagine that there would be a Italian, French etc. article by the "femur" and some named "thigh bone" in other languages but none named "os femoris" or "os longissimum", which are far more obscure terms.

As I pointed out before I know more or less nothing about Wikidata and even less about bots, but I would be willing to help out where ever I can is I can find a way to move forward with this. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@JakobSteenberg: I usually just look through the item history to see which bot has made similar edits. It seems d:User:MerlIwBot has experience with parsing these names and adding them to the Wikidata item. You could ask the user to do the same for the English infoboxes. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, thank you very much. I will try talking to him or her. JakobSteenberg (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

About TA property and FMA IDs addition

(I don't know where should I put information, so I put here. If this place is inappropriate, please move this to somewhere.)

I added TA98 and FMA IDs at Wikidata manually. I didn't use automatic processes. I opened this TA98 tree, and searched English Wikipedia articles one by one with English, Latin and other synonyms, through from top to down of this TA tree. As a result, there are differences in numbers on each websites. As follows.

• TA has about 7500 entries. (Terminologia Anatomica)
• English Wikipedia has 4500 anatomy articles. (Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Anatomy articles by quality statistics)
• And IDs I added at Wikidata is about 3000. (d:Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P1323)

The main reason why TA has 7500 entries but Wikidata has only 3000 IDs is...

• TA is very detailed, than Wikipedia. Substructures (e.g. very small branches of nerves or blood vessels and so on) have its own entries in TA, but in Wikipedia, these terms are generally described in its parent structure articles.
• TA is human anatomy terminology. So TA doesn't treat anatomists (e.g. Johannes Sobotta), animal anatomy (e.g. tail) and so on.

As far as I think, these two are main reasons of number differences.

TA Property transclusion in {{infobox anatomy}} is already working. Formerly I asked at Module_talk:Wikidata, and User:RexxS had wrote code for our project at Module:Sandbox/RexxS/TA98. This code is working now smoothly (thank you RexxS).

I added FMA ID (Foundational Model of Anatomy ID) when I added TA ID at Wikidata. However FMA is not international standard terminology. But in data processing realm (means treating human anatomical concepts on computers as data), FMA is more popular than TA. Because FMA is more detailed and the most importantly FMA is structurized as ontology. FMA defines many relations between each entries (e.g. "is part of" or "is developed from" or "is nerve supplied by" or "muscle attaches to" and so on). Thank you. --Was a bee (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Was a bee, thanks, that's some amazing work and very useful. Almost daily I click on the TA to cross-reference an article, and the future possibilities for research and wikidata are many and varied. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Presentation of parameters in infobox

Autofilling parameters

There are a number of neglected fields in the "Infobox anatomy", eg "System", "Precursor", "Part of" and so forth. Now that TA has been uploaded to Wikidata, I wonder whether it would be possible to autofill some parameters based on the TA value? EG:

• All "TA06.01" can be set to "Part of = Nose",
• All "TA06.04" can be set to "Part of = Bronchi" and "System = Respiratory", "Exam = Respiratory"
• All "TA06.06" can be set to "Part of = Lung" and "System = Respiratory", "Exam = Respiratory" and "Precursor = "Respiratory bud" and "Foregut" and "Mesenchyme"

I think this would be possible if we set our minds to it. We could rapidly work through a great deal of infoboxes using this model, and it would add a lot of basic information that I think users may need. Especially interesting would be if we can link some terms to other wikidata entries. Then someday we could click on "Mesenchyme" and see all things that are derived from it (and so forth). --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(Am using this link [15] to access TA). --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This Friday, Female genital mutilation will be featured on the main page. From 00:00 6 February 2015 and for about three days after, there will be a dramatic increase in traffic to the page. The TFA blurb is here. The date coincides with the International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation and the UN will be doing what it can to raise interest in FGM, and that will direct even more traffic to the article.

Would participants here please do extra monitoring of articles linked from FGM. The following is from the lead: clitoral hood ∙ clitoris ∙ labia majora ∙ labia minora ∙ vagina ∙ vulva. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I would love to help. I already have the page for Labia Minora on my watch list. Forgive me for what may seem like a silly question, but what exactly does "monitoring" entail? I imagine essentially keeping abreast of page changes to prevent vandalism? Fetters of ennui (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you know what a WP:Watchlist is, I'm certain that you know what Johnuniq means. Yes, it means what you stated in your "04:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)" post, except that it also means keeping a lookout for WP:Disruptive editing in general. Flyer22 (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations to Wikipedia for allowing this to be featured on the main page. I still remember (vaguely) creating category relating to the topic and having the category deleted. So looks like we are making some progress!!! Ottawahitech (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

These articles even state they are synonymous, but...

• Waist
• Midriff

... also see Navel's history for the past month.
-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yikes. Agree those articles are in need of cleanup, but I'm not sure how they should be merged unless some information is lost... at least in my part of the word, in wiki terms the midriff is of enough sociocultural importance to justify it's own wiki page. One day I will add information about the history of Navel gazing, which is quite interesting. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to simply leave it, and there are a whole lot of articles there I want nothing to do with, but these seem important enough to be worthy of consideration. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, these seem like good examples of those articles that have such a wide overlapping in terms of Anatomy and social significance that is difficult for us (as WP:Anatomy) to edit with the same consistency of other articles. Maybe Waist and Abdomen can be merged without loss of content, but Waist-hip ratio confuses me in the sense that waist may have a narrower definition (why no Abdomen-hip ratio?), and a redirect to Abdomen doesn't look right in that case. Anyway, I'll see if I can give a hand on these articles, I'm already grouping the text on Waist under headers we see more often. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A more encyclopedic-looking illustration in waist-hip ratio would be nice. Contrasting a SuicideGirls model with a so-so photo of some Average Joe is a good idea in theory, but the stereotyping is just too much. Using a nudie model photo to illustrate a mathematical ratio like this is kinda gratuitous.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Back-round: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force#Female body shape

The article is already requested in articles for creation but it would be nice to have this done sooner rather than later. Please if anyone would be willing to help out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

As seen here and here, I commented there about it, stating, "I don't think that the Male body shape link redirecting to the Body shape article has anything to do with males being the default; I think it has to do with the fact that much more has been written about female body shape than about male body shape. Really, this is shown in the literature on body shape. Ideally, we should only create WP:Spinouts when needed. Not every sex/gender topic needs to have corresponding male and female/man and woman articles. I've got nothing more to state on this matter at this talk page or the WP:Anatomy talk page since I'm not interested in debating the political aspects of it." Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm done with that topic. Flyer22 (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, do you think you could elaborate on what you mean by your comment on the lack of information in the literature about the male body shape? What works are you thinking about here?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Peter Isotalo. Stating that "much more has been written about female body shape than about male body shape" (which is easily seen not only by Googling "Body shape" or going to a local library for material on the topic) is not the same thing as stating "[there is a] lack of information in the literature about the male body shape." But I can see how "lack" fits in this case when compared to female body shape. I would hope that editors who create a Male body shape article do not engage in WP:Synthesis by scrounging together anything that concerns the male body and tying that to the topic of male body shape when the sources are not even discussing the topic of male body shape. What I stated about there being much more material on female body shape than on male body shape can be similarly stated of bodybuilding, which I see is an article that has been recently mentioned there at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force. I am glad that other editors there have stated that there should be a Female body shape article. Before bodybuilding was recently mentioned there, I thought about commenting, like I did before, on the fact that we do not have a Male bodybuilding article, but we do have a Female bodybuilding article, because there is much more material out there about male bodybuilding than there is about female bodybuilding; this makes the Bodybuilding article the default for male bodybuilding. So does this then mean that we should merge the articles and treat the topics equally, or have the Bodybuilding article equally focus on men and women and create a Male bodybuilding article afterward, just to try and tackle perceived sexism? I don't think so.

Again, I'm not too interested in discussing this female body shape topic; this is because it upsets me to see Wikipedia editors tackling gender gap issues in ways that I feel are at odds with how Wikipedia is supposed to work. There are a lot of topics where we have an article on a male aspect but not on a female aspect; this is typically because the female aspect is either not WP:Notable or not significantly WP:Notable to warrant its own article. And there are a lot of topics where we have an article on a female aspect but not on a male aspect; this is typically because the male aspect is either not WP:Notable or not significantly WP:Notable to warrant its own article. And if there is any WP:Systematic bias in that, then it's because of WP:Due weight -- the fact that the WP:Reliable sources give far more weight to one aspect over the other. As seen here regarding a WP:Med discussion and here on down, both about labiaplasty, I've disagreed with SlimVirgin before on ways to tackle bias concerning the female body. While I admire a lot of the work SlimVirgin has done on Wikipedia, such as for female topics, we don't always see eye to eye. Her female body shape merger proposal is one of those cases. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flyer, if I might comment more generally I think it's very good that so many users are interested in the gender gap, and even better that there's a diversity of opinions about what we can do about it. Having seen discussion about the gap in action in many other areas of WP I feel we have fortunately quite a quiet haven for a project that's so fundamentally intertwined with gender. In my past interactions I've found Sarah to be reasonable and OK with compromise, and I do recognise some actions (eg merger and AfD) proposals may have a grain of truth, but the auxillary benefit of drawing attention to particular issues. As you imply above a 'split' of content from bodybuilding to 'Male' bodybuilding is in my mind very reasonable. I also had a look at the labioplasty debate you mentioned. That's a difficult issue, because I feel whatever we do here is, in some way political in nature, even if we are trying to be based on fact... the way we treat issues, including headings, structure and formatting all can influence readers and I think that most editors lie on different parts of the spectrum in terms of how to deal with this, particularly in medical articles (eg should we emphasize what is normal vs interventional, the cultural / historical basis of things, or just the medicine isolated from its social context). --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate reading your take on these matters, LT910001 (Tom). Regarding the Body shape and Bodybuilding articles, and similar articles, editors need to know when to employ WP:Spinout. The aforementioned cases are not necessary WP:Spinouts. The first one (proposing to create a Male body shape article) is politically-driven. And so is proposing to create a Male bodybuilding article. The vast majority of bodybuilding concerns males. So this means that the Bodybuilding article would be hugely redundant to the Male bodybuilding article unless a relatively small Bodybuilding article were crafted and left out essential details on bodybuilding. What is the benefit for our readers to have them unnecessarily go to three articles for information on bodybuilding? There is not any. Trying to get across the point to them that male and female bodybuilding are of equal weight because they both have individual articles is not beneficial; it is not beneficial because it is a point not based in reality, since these two topics are not of equal weight. Politically-motivated editing is not how I operate on Wikipedia, unless WP:Due weight is on its side, as is the case with sexism mostly concerning women. As seen in that case (after the "11:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)" post), SlimVirgin (Sarah) and I are in agreement. I cannot be in agreement with her on this female body shape matter, however, and certainly not on the "no before and after images of labiaplasty" matter. Despite other medical editors agreeing that a "before and after" image of labiaplasty should be included at that article, there still is yet to be one there; and the absence of a "before and after" image there is because SlimVirgin believes that including a certain type (one presumably driven by aesthetics) would mean that Wikipedia is taking a stance on the matter -- that Wikipedia is stating that girls and women should get the surgery. Imagine if a similar belief were allowed at other medical articles, where it can be argued that Wikipedia is telling people they should get the surgery simply because a "before and after" image is shown; for example, at the Breast augmentation and Breast implant articles. So, yeah, diverse opinions are usually fine, but Wikipedia has certain ways of working for valid reasons. Editors should do their best to keep their biases out of their editing; WP:Activism has good advice on this. In the past, when I saw bias creeping into my editing, I took a step back. For years now, my bias on Wikipedia is always due to WP:Due weight. Flyer22 (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI: I have just added this new category and noticed many pages with unanswered comments on talk pages belonging to this categry. For example:Talk:Maxillary canine. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

While these certainly belong in WP:ANAT, I think you may find WP:DENTAL more helpful when it comes to oral anatomy. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that a category "Human tooth" would also be useful. Snowman (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I just wanted to let someone know that there is an incorrect link in the article "anterior talofibular ligament." The link for "anterior drawer test" is going to the article "anterior cruciate ligament injury." Diagnosing an ACL injury does use a test called the "anterior drawer test," but there's a separate test by the same name for the ankle, used for diagnosing injuries with the ATL. The link in the ATL article should refer to this test, not the one for the ACL. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.143.117 (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted, the article now redirects instead to Drawer test, which unfortunately is quite low quality. There are very few orthopedic-interested Wikipedians so it would be lovely to get some more. Best, -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Also I'm not so sure about the English terminology, but aren't there drawer tests for the talocalcaneal/talocrural joints as well? Or are these known as something else in English? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's what you said. I don't have any resource at the moment, but Drawer test needs to be expanded]]. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually there are several more drawer tests, including of the MP-joints as well as the shoulder. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've had a look at almost all our templates now as part of a general biology-related template cleanup effort. I've identified a list of 39 or so anatomy templates that I feel are especially in need of cleanup (which would probably be about 10%). Most of these need cleanup in terms of making them easier or more logical to read, or easier for lay readers to understand and use. I'd be very grateful if other editors could help out by selecting one or two and helping out. Thanks particularly to Tilifa Ocaufa who has been helping out currently. The full list is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy/Open_Tasks#Cleanup_templates. Thanks! --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Also please feel free to disagree with any of my comments on the page, I have reached a bit of a loggerheads in my individual cleanup so I would greatly welcome the input of other editors. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all the hours spent on organizing the cleanup of these templates. There are a number of them which are particularly hard to even start to organize, but most of them only need small fixes on naming or spelling out abbreviations ;) --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that in a lot of articles related to the kidney e.g. renal papilla or renal pelvis the terms "Efferent artery" and "Afferent vein" (both red links) are used in the infobox in relation to the image Kidney PioM.png. I can not recall ever reading about these two terms. When looking at the image description it states number 2 and 12 as being interlobular artery and interlobar vein which seems right to me.

My questions to you are the following (10 minutes random Google search didn´t really get me closer to an answer):

• Have anybody ever heard of "efferent arteries" (not arterioles) and "afferent veins" in the kidney?
• Are these synonyms for interlobular arteries and veins?

Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Addition: When looking at the image description in other languages (German and Spanish) it appears to be the afferent and efferent arterioles; although I am not strong enough in either of these languages to be sure. JakobSteenberg (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

：Response: It is very common to hear about afferent and efferent arterioles in terms of the glomerulus. This is not interchangable with interlobular arteries and veins. There is no such thing as an 'afferent vein', which is a tautology at best, and afferent arteries, well almost all arteries are afferents. I have found some other strange labels on images so I wouldn't be surprised if there are some discrepancies, thanks for your sleuthing! Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. We seem to agree. I just wanted to make sure I haven´t forgot some vital information about kidney blood supply. If there aren´t any objections within a couple of days I will change the text in the infoboxes, where the image has been used, to interlobular arteries and veins. JakobSteenberg (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Article Fusiform gyrus is assigned to Education Program from Cornell university biology course. (Education Program:Cornell University). Ending date of the course is May, 2015. Fusiform gyrus is very interesting region of the brain. I hope they will be able to finish expanding. --Was a bee (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I am not a insider of that program. I just found the assignment of the article through watchlist :3 --Was a bee (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I noted on RuneMan3's talk page the following: "I wonder if you are creating unnecessary WP:Stub articles and similar in other cases. Take your move of the Tooth development article, for example, which I noticed last year. I don't think that there was a need to split the content into a Human tooth development and Animal tooth development article. Per WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, we generally keep the non-human animal content in one article as an 'Other animals' section unless the content needs a separate article. This is the case for the other listings at WP:MEDSECTIONS as well."

Opinions? I'm not strongly opposed to separate articles for this content; I simply wonder if the content is not better served in one article. I will alert WP:Animal anatomy to this discussion as well, though I know that some of them already have this project on their WP:Watchlists. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Data of Gray's Anatomy is discussing now at Wikidata (wikidata:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Natural_science#Gray.27s_Anatomy_1918_page). Currently main point of discussion is essentially technical aspect, "in what format we should store these data in Wikidata?". If you have any comment or ideas, please join! Thanks. --Was a bee (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion whether to merge template:Accessory organs of the eye with Template:Orbital bones @ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 8#Template:Accessory organs of the eye. Given that these templates are within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, you are invited to comment in the pending TfD/TfM discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a digital spreadsheet copy of the public pdf terminologia anatomica version to facilitate easy parsing for Wikidata or other articles. I am currently in contact with one of the leaders of the international federation of associations of anatomists (IFAA). However, I am currently struggling with a language barrier. Do any of our more linguistically gifted members know Swedish or, svenska as I believe its called, maybe something close? (Google Translate isn't really cutting it.) Any suggestions or opinions are welcome. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I am native in Danish, so I can understand Swedish to a certain extend. If you need something translated FROM Swedish I am much more help than if you need something translated INTO Swedish... deepening on how much you need translated I also have a couple of Swedish friends on Facebook and two colleagues that surely could be bothered if it is only a couple of sentences... Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No help from me, but if CFCF is around he may be obliging! --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

HoneyBadger4 I happen to be from Sweden, and I think you have my e-mail, so feel free to send me any questions. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all for the help. With some luck this problem will be resolved quickly. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I now have two excel spreadsheets:

1. 1989TA in english and latin (Need to sort these so that Latin & English line up).
2. Nomina Anatomica + several synonyms and eponyms

I would like to combine these. I do not have the skills to do accomplish this currently and I will not have time until summer. If anybody would like these to upload them to Wikidata or for some other purpose please let me know. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Bfpage created the The embryonic and prenatal development of the male reproductive system (human) article. Besides the WP:Article title issues (use of the word the and the parentheses), this article is redundant to the Development of the reproductive system and Development of the urinary system articles (among others). As some know, we merged/redirected a few reproduction and reproduction-related articles last year: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 7#Sexual differentiation articles. Flyer22 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, I remember with anguish how confusingly the sexual development articles were/are structured. Anyhow this looks like a good faith attempt to expand WP, so I would lean on the side of not doing anything for a while. We were all newbies once upon a time. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's an article made in good faith. I'll try to give the article a cleanup today, but I agree it should ultimately be merged if there's not extra detail on the male reproductive system that justifies a spinout. We should definitely give a suitable title to the article though. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a good look at the new article and assuming good faith on my part. The new article contains much information not currently contained in the encyclopedia, especially the chromosomal aspect regarding the X and Y gene expression related to hormone control. I incorporated all of the information currently contained in the article Development of the reproductive system into the new article and so the next step was for me to propose a merge. I believe the creation of this new article is the first step in giving embryonic development of the reproductive system for each sex the attention and detail that the topics deserve.

  Bfpage |leave a message  12:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: I'm obviously of the opinion that this content (whatever is not unnecessary redundancy) should be merged. Per what Tilifa Ocaufa and I stated above in this section, there is no valid reason that the "The embryonic and prenatal development of the male reproductive system (human)" article should exist. I would merge the content, but, given my interaction with Bfpage, and that I would rather stay away from the editor because of that, I would rather not be the one to merge the content. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)