578:
stem. "Fun facts" like that. In fact, I think it might be good to have a section in the discussion section of each article on "FACTS TO INCLUDE", and these can be translated into prose for the article over time (and removed from the list in the discussion section). To see the current state of anatomy on wikipedia, just find a medical school anatomy test (a verbal one, not an atlas-based identify-the-structure one), and try to take it using wikipedia as a source. (Sort of like an OPEN BOOK test). Knowledge is currently inferior to modern texts (even if we took all the pictures out of the texts), but it has the capability of being a lot better (as a reference for verbal anatomical information). (Knowledge anatomy is better than Gray's anatomy, seeing as how Gray's anatomy terminology is so out of date that it is unreadable). --
600:
make it back. For that topic, it would probably be best to confine ourselves to a couple of sections, the main being a "components of the human ear" section that links to other (of "our") sections. For an article like the one on the leg, it might be better to come up with a separate article, such as 'leg (TA)' or 'leg(anatomical)'. This article would properly discuss the fascia, bones, etc. between the knee and ankle. --
656:
thing worth remembering. People see one, and go and add their own. If there were a 'standard' mnemonic, I would not object. But check out the quantity of terrible anatomy mnemonics out there on the internet today. Having to choose only the good pnemonics might make some articles terribly subjective. And most of the best mnemonics are quite dirty. --
540:
non-trivial. This could mean the class of fibers (e.g. parasympathetic, somatic motor, taste) as well as origins of the fibers (C3, T5, Cranial nerve 7). Included should be "parent(s)" (including hitchhikers), named branches, communicating branches, and structures innervated (and what type of innervation). --
712:
I have to admit, ligatures are irritating (hence why I don't use them), but I've always taken offense to some A.E. spellings and the way in which many
Americans purport it to be the only English worthy of existing. A personal thing likely, but considering English has so many dialects and is spoken in
669:
Well as an
Australian user and user of British English I would say that the "standard" is not to use American English, rather it seems more Americans are editing the articles. Both are acceptable as long as it's not disrupting the article. It's a tricky situation though... up until a couple of years
588:
23) HUMAN ANATOMY - I think the articles should be centered primarily on human anatomy. That's not to say a structure should only be human, but it should probably be set apart in a different section of the article. I'm thinking of something like a "Comparative
Anatomy" section, and have it mention
466:
15) Information should be duplicated as little as possible, and anatomy is especially vulnerable. For example, the lacrimal parasympathetic pathway should not be extensively explained in multiple articles (like facial nerve, greater petrosal nerve, pterygopalatine ganglion, AND lacrimal gland), but
35:
1) The official name should be according to
Terminologia Anatomica (TA), the current international standard. That is, the English version of the term (as translated by TA). This would mean that 'pterygopalatine fossa' would win over 'sphenopalatine fossa', . The Latin term should be included in the
702:
I propose
American English to be the standard for the anatomy articles. According to another wiki page, the U.S. has 67% of the world's native English speakers. But that's not why I think it should be the standard here. The American spellings are shorter, and British English often uses ligatures
655:
Don't get me wrong--I like mnemonics. But they take away from the general encyclopedia/textbook feel and turn it into more of a study guide for those who are required to memorize things for class. And my main concern with them is that there are about fifty different mnemonics for every anatomical
553:
20) MUSCLES (specifically skeletal muscles) - Attachments, actions, innervation, synergists et al., etc. I've noticed that a lot of text book authors avoid the whole 'origin' vs 'insertion' in describing attachments because it is often arbitrary, and sometimes the origin and insertion depends upon
342:
8) Mnemonic devices are probably not appropriate. Maybe a link at the bottom of the article might do. Facts about the structure that just happen to aid in memorization may be fine. SCALP is probably fine when listing the layers of it, but all of the OOOTTAFVGVAH devices are not. I think subtlety
599:
24) SHARING - I don't think Human
Anatomy should claim really broad anatomical terms/structures. That is, for a subject like ears, we shouldn't go in and say "Hey, this is how this article is going to be arranged". Even if we tried, that 'Famous people known for their ears' section will probably
352:
10) Etymologies of certain words would be helpful. These would contain the source word (transliterated into
English for Greek/Arabic/etc.) and its definition. Features that are derived from other anatomical features (that still has shared term in it) should refer the reader to the structure that
839:
are listed as plural (e.g. brachial veins). Also, when discussing paired structures in the singular, we should indicate that it is a paired structure. For example, we should mention that the common iliac artery is a paired structure...it is present on both left and right sides, while the median
577:
22) Depth of article. I think the article (at least) should include what would be testable on an average medical school/basic medical science gross anatomy test. With the trochlear nerve, in addition to its source, it should be said that it is the only CN that emerges from the back of the brain
830:
Does anyone object to the project endorsing a writing style that speaks of paired structures as an individual structure--this is essentially the anatomy textbook standard where one writes about a vagus nerve in the singular, even though there are two? And along similar lines, how about we set a
637:
The standard on
Knowledge seems to be to use US spelling and have the British ones redirecting. Occasionally I've seen something like "The esophagus (British English: oesophagus) is a..." It may not actually be the case with esophagus, but it's an option - otherwise I'd favour sticking to the US
517:
17) ARTERIES - In articles about arteries, it should be mentioned early on what the "parent" of that artery is. (What is a good word for "parent"?) Moreover, the article should list what the branches of the artery are, as well as any regions/structures supplied directly by this artery (i.e. by
72:
A reference for what exactly? If you are referring to the credentials of TA, you can ask your local anatomist I guess. After less than a minute of searching my bookshelf, I found a reference to it on the back of Grant's Atlas. The TA came out in 1998, so check any fairly recent anatomy text.
539:
19) NERVES - Nerves should be described in a central to peripheral manner, regardless of whether it is efferent (motor), afferent(sensory), or mixed. The word "anastomosis" should not be used to describe nerves joining together. The content of the nerves (fibers) should be included when it is
528:
18) VEINS - Veins (perhaps) should first mention what it feeds, and then mention its tributaties ("branches"). This stresses the central end over the peripheral ends. For example, the brachiocephalic vein(s), the superior vena cava (the receiver of the blood) would be named first, and the the
289:
6) Perhaps every page should have a link to an article on understanding basic anatomical terminology. This article would only include the bare essentials (sup, inf, ant, post, med, lat, anatomical position, etc) but not so much as to overload someone who is unfamiliar with anatomy (eg rostral,
761:
that..." And I see your point on the mnemonics, Mauvila. My gut feel is that they're going to get on here one way or another, however - perhaps a standard note along the lines of "There is one or more mnemonics associated with this topic. Please see --name of page we keep them on here--"?
353:
provided the term, not to the original derivation. For example, the etymology section of the deltoid tuberosity should refer the reader to the deltoid muscle, not to the definition 'delta-shaped, triangular'. It should be the deltoid muscle article that refers back to Greek.
347:
9) Certain things that are bilaterally symetrical should be referred to in the singular. E.g. 'the glossopharyngeal nerve runs behind...', not 'the glossopharyngeal nerves run behind...'. But it should be stated at the beginning of the article that there are two of the item.
250:
5) The articles should be accessible to those with a high school education, but it should also be very relevant to a medical school's gross anatomy class. I think 'anterior' is fair game, but should only be used when 'in front of' lacks the precision or sounds funny.
835:...I think the TA decides by only looking at one half of the body...if there are more of a vein on a single side, then that structure is plural. This is often seen when discussing veins...they list veins like the subclavian vein as singular, while veins that are
192:
To recap what was said below, it seems the current consensus is to go with
American English spellings for anatomical structures, but to prominently mention the British English spellings in the first sentence of that structure's article. Is this correct?
77:
the official body of anatomical nomenclature created jointly by the
Federative Committee on Anatomical Terminology and the 56 Member Associations of the International Associations of Anatomists and published in 1998. It supersedes the Nomina Anatomica
211:
4) The current port from Gray's is a good base, but Gray's is out-of-date. Certain concepts need modernization. But I think the templates are a good start. (e.g. a muscle should have a chart that includes attachments, innervation, function, etc).
31:
I can think of a whole lot of issues that need to be addressed, but here are a few things I might recommend. (I'm just tossing these around for discussion's sake--I'm not personally fixed on any of them. I'm being arbitrary for a few of them.)
125:
I've got the TA book, so I could always answer any question. But I think one can find out the TA term at the Dorland's online dictionary at Mercksource.com. The Latin TA terms will have next to it, and the standard English version follows.
670:
ago I didn't even know Americans spoke and wrote a dialect of English but now on Knowledge it seems to be the majority. The language probably should be changed to Americanese though, haha, it's a bit of a misnomer to call it "English" --
641:
I think it's appropriate to include mnemonics - this site is used as a learning tool, after all, and most of them are at least borderline acceptable. As you imply, they shouldn't be the focus of the article, but there's a place for them,
506:
16) The first sentence should say what the object is (e.g. a bone, a nerve, an artery) and something specific about that object. I see a lot of articles starting off with stuff like "The (object) is slender and vulnerable to injury."
206:
3) For certain things, the TA is indecisive. One should be decided on and uniformly applied, but the other should be mentioned. E.g. 'Fibular' should beat 'peroneal', but article should prominently mention the peroneal synonym.
294:
Yes yes and yes - a little header or something else unobtrusive linking to a page on anatomical terms is an excellent idea. Even if, just in the introduction, it was stated with a link somewhere (e.g. the pharynx is located, in
471:
Yep, I noticed this today in the chromatography sections of wikipedia - many articles would deal with the same thing over and over again. Use of headings and a {{details|article}} template is invaluable here --
567:
21) Relations (or "what's nearby"). Where applicable, neighboring structures should be named, as well where in the body the structure is located (especially vertebral levels, where applicable). --
255:
A matter of taste, I like how you're being flexible about it but would give preference to anatomical terms. I think the context and style of the article indicated which should be used --
554:
the current action of the muscle. I think origin/insertion designation should be mentioned (explicitly or implicity) in the 'actions' section, and not in the 'attachments' section. --
792:
142:
Some topics will be difficult, especially where the headword's English definition (historical and common) is not fully coincident with its modern anatomical definition. (See
529:"branches" (tributaries) would be named afterwards. In describing the course of the vein, however, it is appropriate to describe it in the direction of blood flow. --
156:
2) The TA does not choose between British and American English (e.g. both esophagus and oesophagus are acceptable). No idea how to resolve this.
391:
11) The discussion page of anatomy articles should provide a link to a page containing whatever the accepted guidelines end up being.
17:
745:
I suggest we go with the current form and use US english with British English noted where appropriate, as here from the start of the
713:
so many countries I don't think Knowledge, the world encylopedia, should have to conform to just the USA's way of spelling things --
308:
Yeah, if it doesn't make sense or isn't specific in nature there is no need for it to be in an article in the first place --
462:
14) Maybe a section on variations (where applicable). Sources would probably need to be specifically cited for this part.
801:
844:
816:
806:
766:
740:
707:
697:
660:
649:
623:
613:
604:
593:
582:
571:
558:
544:
533:
522:
511:
499:
450:
422:
384:
335:
282:
243:
197:
187:
150:
130:
120:
88:
67:
84:
Anyway, most of the entries as they are comply, but a few are still really out-of-date terms from Gray's.--
832:
609:
25) EMBRYOLOGY - a section on embryological origins of structure may be appropriate for some articles. --
796:
446:
299:, anterior to the oesophagus). Even the words anterior, superior etc. could be linked to a similar page.
731:
688:
490:
413:
375:
326:
273:
234:
178:
111:
58:
831:
guideline that says: whether the structure is singular or plural depends upon how it is listed in
395:
Great idea, the more people that know the better. A template could be designed easily for this --
589:
stuff like fetlocks or whatever. For REALLY general terms (like lungs), see next guideline. --
754:
93:
Yep, was just wondering if there was an online source we could check the correct names at --
836:
442:
296:
750:
716:
673:
475:
398:
360:
311:
258:
219:
163:
96:
43:
619:
Once again, I'm just throwing this stuff out there just to see what people think. --
841:
813:
704:
657:
620:
610:
601:
590:
579:
568:
555:
541:
530:
519:
508:
438:
434:
194:
147:
127:
85:
763:
758:
746:
646:
357:
Yes, etymologies are extremely useful, place them in wherever possible! --
458:
13) Maybe a section for clinical relevance for the given structure.
304:
7) Super-ambiguous words like 'waist' should probably not be used.
73:
Dorland's Dictionary online (at Mercksource.com) had this to say:
703:
for imported terms, which are not fun to type multiple times. --
143:
160:
Probably just a first-come first-serve basis for editors --
467:
rather have an agreed upon article that addresses it.
40:
Sounds interesting, is there a reference for this? --
793:
Knowledge:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)
633:
Agree with most all of this. Additions / exceptions:
429:12) The word 'moeity' should not be used anywhere.
453:(who is on a periodical hunt for the mis-spelling)
812:Nah, this stuff is really just brainstorming.
8:
840:sacral artery is not a paired structure.
7:
290:caudal, pronation, supination...)
216:Definitely to the muscle chart! --
24:
18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Anatomy
753:: haematology) is the branch of
27:Anatomy guidelines - suggestions
1:
791:Should I put some of this in
845:19:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
451:06:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
817:20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
807:16:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
860:
767:16:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
741:08:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
708:05:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
698:04:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
661:13:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
650:12:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
624:08:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
614:00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
605:00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
594:00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
583:23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
572:23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
559:23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
545:23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
534:23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
523:23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
512:23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
500:04:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
423:12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
385:12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
336:12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
283:12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
244:12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
198:23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
188:12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
151:23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
131:05:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
121:04:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
89:13:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
68:12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
36:article for reference.
638:spelling for preference.
833:Terminologia Anatomica
749:article: "Hematology (
518:unnamed branches). --
146:and its discussion.)--
437:is actually spelled
629:Reply to guidelines
826:Paired structures
805:
797:Steven Fruitsmaak
755:internal medicine
736:
693:
495:
433:Especially since
418:
380:
343:is the key here.
331:
278:
239:
183:
116:
63:
851:
837:venae comitantes
799:
734:
730:
726:
719:
691:
687:
683:
676:
493:
489:
485:
478:
416:
412:
408:
401:
378:
374:
370:
363:
329:
325:
321:
314:
297:anatomical terms
276:
272:
268:
261:
237:
233:
229:
222:
181:
177:
173:
166:
114:
110:
106:
99:
61:
57:
53:
46:
859:
858:
854:
853:
852:
850:
849:
848:
828:
789:
732:
724:
717:
689:
681:
674:
631:
491:
483:
476:
414:
406:
399:
376:
368:
361:
327:
319:
312:
274:
266:
259:
235:
227:
220:
179:
171:
164:
112:
104:
97:
59:
51:
44:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
857:
855:
827:
824:
822:
820:
819:
788:
785:
783:
780:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
664:
663:
644:
643:
639:
630:
627:
617:
597:
586:
575:
565:
563:
551:
549:
537:
526:
515:
504:
503:
502:
464:
460:
456:
455:
454:
427:
426:
425:
389:
388:
387:
350:
345:
340:
339:
338:
302:
301:
300:
287:
286:
285:
248:
247:
246:
209:
204:
203:
202:
201:
200:
154:
140:
139:
138:
137:
136:
135:
134:
133:
82:
81:
80:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
856:
847:
846:
843:
838:
834:
825:
823:
818:
815:
811:
810:
809:
808:
803:
798:
794:
786:
784:
781:
768:
765:
760:
756:
752:
748:
744:
743:
742:
738:
737:
735:
727:
722:
721:
720:
711:
710:
709:
706:
701:
700:
699:
695:
694:
692:
684:
679:
678:
677:
668:
667:
666:
665:
662:
659:
654:
653:
652:
651:
648:
640:
636:
635:
634:
628:
626:
625:
622:
616:
615:
612:
607:
606:
603:
596:
595:
592:
585:
584:
581:
574:
573:
570:
564:
561:
560:
557:
550:
547:
546:
543:
536:
535:
532:
525:
524:
521:
514:
513:
510:
501:
497:
496:
494:
486:
481:
480:
479:
470:
469:
468:
463:
459:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
431:
430:
424:
420:
419:
417:
409:
404:
403:
402:
394:
393:
392:
386:
382:
381:
379:
371:
366:
365:
364:
356:
355:
354:
349:
344:
337:
333:
332:
330:
322:
317:
316:
315:
307:
306:
305:
298:
293:
292:
291:
284:
280:
279:
277:
269:
264:
263:
262:
254:
253:
252:
245:
241:
240:
238:
230:
225:
224:
223:
215:
214:
213:
208:
199:
196:
191:
190:
189:
185:
184:
182:
174:
169:
168:
167:
159:
158:
157:
153:
152:
149:
145:
132:
129:
124:
123:
122:
118:
117:
115:
107:
102:
101:
100:
92:
91:
90:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
70:
69:
65:
64:
62:
54:
49:
48:
47:
39:
38:
37:
33:
26:
19:
829:
821:
790:
782:
779:
729:
728:
723:
715:
714:
686:
685:
680:
672:
671:
645:
632:
618:
608:
598:
587:
576:
566:
562:
552:
548:
538:
527:
516:
505:
488:
487:
482:
474:
473:
465:
461:
457:
441:. <G: -->
428:
411:
410:
405:
397:
396:
390:
373:
372:
367:
359:
358:
351:
346:
341:
324:
323:
318:
310:
309:
303:
288:
271:
270:
265:
257:
256:
249:
232:
231:
226:
218:
217:
210:
205:
176:
175:
170:
162:
161:
155:
141:
109:
108:
103:
95:
94:
76:
56:
55:
50:
42:
41:
34:
30:
443:DocWatson42
787:Using this
759:pediatrics
747:hematology
718:Serephine
675:Serephine
477:Serephine
400:Serephine
362:Serephine
313:Serephine
260:Serephine
221:Serephine
165:Serephine
98:Serephine
45:Serephine
439:"moiety"
842:Mauvila
814:Mauvila
705:Mauvila
658:Mauvila
621:Mauvila
611:Mauvila
602:Mauvila
591:Mauvila
580:Mauvila
569:Mauvila
556:Mauvila
542:Mauvila
531:Mauvila
520:Mauvila
509:Mauvila
195:Mauvila
148:Mauvila
128:Mauvila
86:Mauvila
802:Reply
764:Nmg20
647:Nmg20
642:IMHO.
16:<
757:and
733:talk
690:talk
492:talk
447:talk
415:talk
377:talk
328:talk
275:talk
236:talk
180:talk
113:talk
60:talk
795:?--
144:arm
751:BE
739:-
696:-
507:--
498:-
449:)
435:it
421:-
383:-
334:-
281:-
242:-
193:--
186:-
126:--
119:-
66:-
804:)
800:(
725:♠
682:♠
484:♠
445:(
407:♠
369:♠
320:♠
267:♠
228:♠
172:♠
105:♠
78:.
52:♠
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.