Talk:Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand

Merge
I have merged the following articles into this one:

I may merge in brachioradialis, anconeus muscle, and supinator and move the article to muscles of the posterior forearm.--Taylornate (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be a good idea to unmerge the individual muscles? Searching for, e.g., "extensor indicis" redirects here and because of this and the use of abbreviations on this page it is difficult to get a quick definition/anatomy for the individual muscles. I would at minimum recommend reducing the use of abbreviations here (particularly in the definitional table).--Xris0 (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is simply not enough material for them to each have a separate article. Do you have any ideas for rearranging the information in this article to make it more accessible?  I support your idea of reducing the use of abbreviations.  We could certainly get them out of the table.  For the article body, it may be tricky to find the ideal balance but I'm sure we could improve it from my current overuse.  I gave your post the standard indentation—I hope you don't mind.--Taylornate (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, mentioned this on your talk and WP:anatomy but I think there's enough material to deserve separate articles. I'm all for keeping this article as it's quite cool, I love the chart, but the giant pictures of the individual muscles helps to identify them, I love those individual pages. Please initiate a "moveto" discussion before making all the moves before consensus is achieved. So I concur with Xris at preferring the old setup. Have asked for additional input. Y12J (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Bigger list
Seeing as how my improvement got reverted here, I'll just post my improved (alphabetized) list below:
 * 1) (APBM)
 * 2) (APLM)
 * 3) (ECRBM)
 * 4) (ECRLM)
 * 5) (ECUM)
 * 6) (EDMM)
 * 7) (EDM)
 * 8) (EIM)
 * 9) (EPBM)
 * 10) (EPLM)
 * 1) (EPLM)

It's hardly 'escalation' to simply make the redirects in dispute easier to keep track of. If any are missing, feel free to add them folks. I added one the APLM actually. Whatever decision is reached, this at least keeps the factors organized. Y12J (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I provided a link to WP:TPO in my edit summary. If you had followed that link and read the material, you would understand that you should not 'improve' other editor's talk page comments because it tends to irritate.--Taylornate (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Minor fixes are usually acceptable, lack organization also tends to irritate. I was under the assumption that something minor (which doesn't change the meaning) wouldn't irk you. I guess I assumed wrong (though perhaps this is just a reaction to not having an outlet to being irked over being opposed?) which is why I re-presented the enhanced list here. Let it's legible alphabetic merits shine in contrast. Y12J (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved
Moved from user talk:Taylornate:
 * I noticed you merged some parts of the posterior compartment of the forearm (the ECRB and ECRL muscle, the ECU muscle into the new page you created extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand. But it appears you didn't initiate a Template:Merge before doing so. It's pretty standard to have distinct articles for each muscle since they're notable enough to deserve them. I'm concerned that not all of the content may be included in your new article. That's usually why merging is done as a gradual process to make sure nothing is lost.


 * For the moment I'm going to revert the redirects (as well as others on the talk to restore that content. Please feel free to nominate them for merging. Your overview page is valuable but I think the old pages should link to it, rather than redirect to it. Y12J (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that every muscle is significant enough to have its own article. This is evidenced by the fact that these articles have been around for years, yet many remain stub-class.  They are stale.  There is also a great deal of information shared redundantly among them.  These two reasons are straightforward justification for a merge.  I did seek comments before I completed the merge on the project pages for medicine and anatomy, and got a total of two comments.  I did not notice the comment by Arcadian because by the time he posted, the discussion was stale.  Looking back, he did not comment on the reasons I gave for the merge.
 * Do you really think 46 words is enough information to warrant a separate article? I think you reverted my work without really looking at it.  You say your are concerned that I may have left something out, but that does not justify a revert.  You are welcome to look for missed information and point it out or merge it yourself.  I put significant effort into this and you should exercise due diligence.  The merge template process is not required by policy and if the merge itself didn't spark a discussion for seven weeks, obviously that process would not have.  Your revert may have been appropriate six weeks ago under WP:Bold, but that time has passed.  At this point, your edits are the bold ones and I would feel justified in reverting them.  I would be happy to have a discussion, but that discussion should start from the current status of the articles, not from seven weeks ago.
 * As a side note, if you seek comment from other users or projects, please direct them to comment here rather than have multiple places of discussion.--Taylornate (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is insane! Of course every muscle is important enough.  Most articles are stubs, virtually every article started as a stub, and most of them remained so for a long time.  All those stubs had references and most of them also had interwiki links to other languages.  In contrast, the English Wikipedia is (AFAIK) the only to have an article on the "extrinsic extensor muscles".  "I put significant effort into this."  Really?  Most of the references are copy-pasted from articles where I added them.  Did you even look for a reference before doing all those merges?  --Fama Clamosa (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is every muscle important enough for a separate article? I've never seen an anatomy book with separate chapters for each muscle.  It's just not a sensible way of arranging the information.  There was a lot of redundancy.  If you look at WP:Merge, duplication of content and minimal content are both listed as reasons to merge.
 * Of course I copied the references, that's what a merge is. Looking for new references is not the point of a merge.  That doesn't make the task trivial.--Taylornate (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Taylor I can see you disagree with those of us who think there should be distinct articles. The thing is: while we should be bold in adding content, we should be more conservative while removing it, and by spuriously redirecting the articles to your new page, you've essentially done that. This has also created a lot of problems because bots have gone around redirecting disambiguatory redirects to your article. Even after I switch the redirects back, the bots will not revert their changes, and this causes problems.

Please read WP:MERGEPROP. Using things like Template:Merge (or specialized to/from) helps to attract discussion to the issue. You have redirected these articles to your page a second time even in light of multiple objections to it.

To use another example, while we do have a quadriceps article, we also have distinct articles for each of the 4 muscles. It's fine that you are discussing the muscles as a group, but having individual articles allows the muscles to be discussed in more specific detail. It allows the use of highlighted pictures to show the muscle (something not included here) and the ability to be more concise and speak on point about that individual muscle and how it relates to others, as opposed to generalizing and making a bloated article jamming all the minutia into a single place.

"Minimal" content is a subjective issue. The muscle articles were not many pages long, but they were at least a page each, so that's not minimal to me. As far as 'duplicated content', that is only because you chose to duplicate it.

A very significant problem with your redirects is that they also lack specificity. Your article is not at a high enough state to be redirecting the other pages to it yet. At the very least there should be distinct sections for each muscle. You have only redirected the names to the page, and not to specific sections to say what the muscle is.

Another important issue is the etymology. Each muscle has reasons why they are named what they are named. Individual pages allow space to explain this. Your article doesn't. It simply lists the names. You have only included generic pictures with multiple labels and expect people to click on the image and search until they find the vertically-written name. That's not user-friendly. The previous articles had special highlighted photographs which made it very easy to locate the muscle. This is the kind of extensivity that makes anatomy approachable by laymen. Had I as a teenager come across your page rather than the previous ones, I would've been very put off, because I'd have no easy way of seeing what was where.

I would like for you to notice: when I reverted your redirects, I actually added links to your new page in a 'see also'. I believe they can coexist. There is no need to remove the previous content. Muscles are important and each distinctively named muscle in the body is important enough to have its own article. I believe anatomists created unique names for these muscles for good reasons, as opposed to lumping them together under a single name like we do with triceps/biceps. Please do not restore your redirects until there is consensus about doing them. Y12J (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * : why do you mind stubs at all? Palmar plate was a stub when I found it.  One of my own favourite contributions (I discovered it because someone created a stub) is Levator claviculae, defintely not an important muscle.  I did a Google on extensor pollicis longus filetype:pdf, there is obviously a lot of people around considering it an important topic.
 * The fact that there are a lot of stubs only reflect the fact that it's very simple to start an article but a lot more effort to add useful content to it. Obscure topics such as human anatomy are doomed to attract only a few editors.  Besides, my anatomy books all describe every muscle separately as do a lot of pages online.
 * --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not removed content. A merge does not do that.
 * I don't believe I was bold in my merge, but as an aside, below you link to a page that says it is perfectly acceptable to boldly merge.
 * I don't believe I was bold in my merge, but as an aside, below you link to a page that says it is perfectly acceptable to boldly merge.


 * This very page you link to says it is not required.
 * You know very well I sought discussion on multiple boards before performing the merge.
 * You know very well I sought discussion on multiple boards before performing the merge.


 * From the project anatomy talk page:
 * From the project anatomy talk page:


 * Maybe you are not familiar with this, but WP:BOLD has a very specific meaning on WP. It means you expect your edit to be reverted.  If you did not want your edits to be reverted, you should have discussed first.
 * Maybe you are not familiar with this, but WP:BOLD has a very specific meaning on WP. It means you expect your edit to be reverted.  If you did not want your edits to be reverted, you should have discussed first.


 * I acknowledge that what I have done is different from how some other articles currently stand. However, that does not support your position that that is the way things should be.  I have supported my position with WP policy.  You have not.
 * I acknowledge that what I have done is different from how some other articles currently stand. However, that does not support your position that that is the way things should be.  I have supported my position with WP policy.  You have not.


 * I think anything you can accomplish with separate articles could be accomplished in this merged article more efficiently. If you would step back and discuss how we might do that, then we might get somewhere.  If the article were to then become bloated, we could discuss splitting some things off.
 * I think anything you can accomplish with separate articles could be accomplished in this merged article more efficiently. If you would step back and discuss how we might do that, then we might get somewhere.  If the article were to then become bloated, we could discuss splitting some things off.


 * The shortest merged article you reverted was 46 words. I already mentioned this.  Please read posts carefully to avoid going in unproductive circles.
 * The shortest merged article you reverted was 46 words. I already mentioned this.  Please read posts carefully to avoid going in unproductive circles.


 * No, there was a lot of unnecessary duplication among the individual articles and that was one of my two reasons for the merge. Discussing muscles separately is inherently inefficient.  I could elaborate on this.  If you want me to, just ask.
 * No, there was a lot of unnecessary duplication among the individual articles and that was one of my two reasons for the merge. Discussing muscles separately is inherently inefficient.  I could elaborate on this.  If you want me to, just ask.




 * This comes back to whether muscles should be discussed individually or as a group. I know your view on this and you know mine, but as I said above, I'm willing to discuss this in more detail.  I don't think what you describe here is necessarily a problem.




 * Unless I made some errors (entirely probable), all the information from the individual pages exists on my merged page, and the redirects are entirely appropriate. That is exactly what a merge is.


 * The merged article is not perfect, but there is no reason we can't try to improve it to address these concerns and any others. There is no reason to jump to reversion.
 * As a merged article, it is a 100% duplication of the content of the individual articles. In that state, they cannot coexist.  Again, that is the purpose of a merge.
 * I don't see your point. The fact that they have their own names is a red herring.
 * On the contrary, I ask that you establish consensus before reverting my work that I did after seeking discussion, that has been in place for seven weeks. I would like to remind you thatconsensus is achieved by supporting your view by appropriately applying WP policy.  So far, I believe I am the only one who has done this.  I emphasized that because I think it is the most important point from this post.
 * I don't see your point. The fact that they have their own names is a red herring.
 * On the contrary, I ask that you establish consensus before reverting my work that I did after seeking discussion, that has been in place for seven weeks. I would like to remind you thatconsensus is achieved by supporting your view by appropriately applying WP policy.  So far, I believe I am the only one who has done this.  I emphasized that because I think it is the most important point from this post.
 * On the contrary, I ask that you establish consensus before reverting my work that I did after seeking discussion, that has been in place for seven weeks. I would like to remind you thatconsensus is achieved by supporting your view by appropriately applying WP policy.  So far, I believe I am the only one who has done this.  I emphasized that because I think it is the most important point from this post.
 * On the contrary, I ask that you establish consensus before reverting my work that I did after seeking discussion, that has been in place for seven weeks. I would like to remind you thatconsensus is achieved by supporting your view by appropriately applying WP policy.  So far, I believe I am the only one who has done this.  I emphasized that because I think it is the most important point from this post.


 * Minimal content (perhaps the definition of a stub) is, according to policy, a reason to merge. As stubs, it may have been justified to merge palmar plate and levator claviculae into other articles.  That would not in any way have deterred you from expanding content on them.  If the merged article became too large with your expanded content, a split could have then been justified.
 * I think it's easier to improve a larger article than it is to improve a stub. I think consolidating will help with this problem.
 * Which books? I have the Netter atlas, Grant's atlas, and the 13 volume Netter Collection, and I don't think any of them separate by muscle the same way they have been on WP.  Gray's sort of separates by muscles and maybe others do similarly but not to the same degree that we would have with separate articles.  Muscles are much too related to have independent articles and it leads to a great deal of duplication.  As I said before, I am willing to expand on this if asked.
 * I think it's easier to improve a larger article than it is to improve a stub. I think consolidating will help with this problem.
 * Which books? I have the Netter atlas, Grant's atlas, and the 13 volume Netter Collection, and I don't think any of them separate by muscle the same way they have been on WP.  Gray's sort of separates by muscles and maybe others do similarly but not to the same degree that we would have with separate articles.  Muscles are much too related to have independent articles and it leads to a great deal of duplication.  As I said before, I am willing to expand on this if asked.
 * Which books? I have the Netter atlas, Grant's atlas, and the 13 volume Netter Collection, and I don't think any of them separate by muscle the same way they have been on WP.  Gray's sort of separates by muscles and maybe others do similarly but not to the same degree that we would have with separate articles.  Muscles are much too related to have independent articles and it leads to a great deal of duplication.  As I said before, I am willing to expand on this if asked.


 * One last note: Please try to be concise and stick to what is most important in building consensus—applying Wikipedia policy.  Today I believe I have addressed every last point, but it has been too time-consuming and I won't be able to keep up this level of effort.--Taylornate (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I understand of WP:MERGE, the policy is ambiguous by design. Main objections to the merge here seem to be centered around #2 of Reasons to Avoid:


 * "The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles"

I feel that Taylornate has done a good job creating a summary article. The time and effort involved is not trivial. Since there is no deadline, editors who wish to revert the redirects and expand the individual articles may do so at their own leisure. That does not have to happen right now, as the summary seems to present very nicely the info currently available.

One suggestion I have is to curb the use of acronyms, as they are especially burdensome for the layperson. Wafflephile (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

 * "you link to a page that says it is perfectly acceptable to boldly merge."

I believe you are reading selectively Taylor. While the statement "you can be bold and perform the merger" does exist, this follows immediately afterward:
 * "If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, or believe it might be controversial, or your merger ends up reverted, you can propose it on either or both of the affected pages."

I'll wager you still feel certain that this merger is appropriate, but I think we can both agree that it is controversial. Your redirects have been directed several times. That is why, instead of engaging in an edit war, which you are (see here, which would be worth citing WP:3RR if not for the day delays), we could keep the pages restored, and tag them with moveto. Then actually discuss it.

So far four people have protested this merge. Rather than clutter the editing history with us reverting your redirects, and you restoring your redirects, off and on, each and every day, posing the merger is the right thing to do. We can also list your proposal on Proposed_mergers.

A merge does remove content: it removes it from sight. People can't see the articles and to view the muscles like we used to be able to, we need to follow the 'noredirect', click the history, and view the previous version. If I directed hand to limb (anatomy), it effectively removes the hand article even though it's still there and possible to restore. It makes the information impossible to access for laymen inexperienced in browsing Wikipedia, and difficult and time-consuming for those of us that do know how. This is compounded when you continually restore your redirects prior to achieving any sort of consensus about whether or not we should have them or whether or not this page is an adequate replacement for them.

While discussion is not required to make a bold merge (I'm not saying to ban you for doing that), when discussion happens (as it has been recently), it is to be engaged in and not ignored via edit warring. We do not lose anything by not immediately redirecting these pages to your page. Your page is still accessible, and I even made it more accessible by adding links to it. I'm unsure why you're so rushed.

I did discuss reverting it. I announced it beforehand. Please don't play these games here, and learn to recognize sarcasm. Restoring content is hardly a bold move compared to removing it. By deleting the page's contents and adding REDIRECT, you are removing that content, regardless of its' remaining in the history.

Have already asserted: errors were made in the merge. The presentation does not clearly illustrate and define the muscles as it once did. The names just direct to the page, and not any particular part of it, leading those in search of information guessing.

The merged article should be enhanced prior to asserting it should replace the other pages. "We can improve it" is a reason to keep your page around, not a reason to delete others.

Your page can coexist because it simply is not a proper merge. As I already pointed out: we have a quadriceps article and we have a vastus medialis article. We have human calf and human leg simultaneously. We have England and we have London, England. It's fine to have a page that overviews a collection of topics while having pages about those topics in the most extensive detail possible. The pages that existed before defined the muscles more extensively than your merge does, it is an inadequate replacement, and it is not yet worthy of being redirected to, so I will (and it appears others already are) continuing to revert it.

Please go through the proper channels to pursue merger before proceeding. We're not in a rush, the lack of redirects are not doing any harm. Their presence on the other hand, is. Y12J (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are the one reading selectively and it's so blatant I don't understand how you can expect anyone to take you seriously. Here is my statement in-context, emphasis added:
 * You are the one reading selectively and it's so blatant I don't understand how you can expect anyone to take you seriously. Here is my statement in-context, emphasis added:


 * – If this merge was controversial I wouldn't have gotten an explicit go-ahead on the project medicine page, and once completed it wouldn't have stayed for two months. You must not have seen controversy on Wikipedia yet.
 * – If I'm engaging in an edit war, what do you call your own actions?
 * – You are correct that WP:3RR is not worth citing.  With that admission, I'm amused that you did cite it.
 * – Repeat—Nothing is stopping you from leaving the merge as it has been for two months while we discuss.
 * – Repeat—Nothing is stopping you from leaving the merge as it has been for two months while we discuss.


 * Repeat—So far, none of them have backed their view with Wikipedia policy. I have.  That is the most important factor in determining consensus.  Consensus is not a vote.
 * Repeat—So far, none of them have backed their view with Wikipedia policy. I have.  That is the most important factor in determining consensus.  Consensus is not a vote.


 * This goes both ways my friend.
 * This goes both ways my friend.


 * Repeat—This is not a proposed merger. This is a merger that has been proposed, accepted, completed, and sat unreverted for two months.  You know very well I sought comment in two separate venues.
 * Repeat—This is not a proposed merger. This is a merger that has been proposed, accepted, completed, and sat unreverted for two months.  You know very well I sought comment in two separate venues.


 * A proper merge does not remove content. All the content should be there on the article receiving the merge.
 * A proper merge does not remove content. All the content should be there on the article receiving the merge.


 * Not really anything new in this paragraph but wow you are so generous to not ban me. You are the one who is rushing to make changes.  I've been reverting to the state things have been in for two months.
 * Not really anything new in this paragraph but wow you are so generous to not ban me. You are the one who is rushing to make changes.  I've been reverting to the state things have been in for two months.


 * Uh, an announcement is not discussion unless you are the supreme dictator of Wikipedia. Discussion requires multiple parties.  You are the one who applied WP:BOLD to your first edit here.  Maybe my sarcaasm meter is broken, but your statement looks pretty straight to me (quoted below).  Once again, WP:BOLD has very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and your opinion on what is or is not subjectively bold is irrelevant.  The type or content of an edit has nothing to do with it.
 * Uh, an announcement is not discussion unless you are the supreme dictator of Wikipedia. Discussion requires multiple parties.  You are the one who applied WP:BOLD to your first edit here.  Maybe my sarcaasm meter is broken, but your statement looks pretty straight to me (quoted below).  Once again, WP:BOLD has very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and your opinion on what is or is not subjectively bold is irrelevant.  The type or content of an edit has nothing to do with it.


 * Leaving out information would be an error. Presenting the information in a way you personally don't think is clear or you don't like is not an error and not justification for a revert.  An actual error would not necessarily justify reversion.  Since here you are protesting the result of the merge rather than the idea of a merge, let's stop the edit war and work together to improve the article.
 * Leaving out information would be an error. Presenting the information in a way you personally don't think is clear or you don't like is not an error and not justification for a revert.  An actual error would not necessarily justify reversion.  Since here you are protesting the result of the merge rather than the idea of a merge, let's stop the edit war and work together to improve the article.


 * A merge is done all at once. Do you read the links I post?  Do you read the links you post?  We both posted this one.
 * A merge is done all at once. Do you read the links I post?  Do you read the links you post?  We both posted this one.


 * You need to back up your view with Wikipedia policy, not with other articles. Perhaps they are all justified to exist, perhaps not.  I don't see what details I left out but if you would be specific, there is no reason why we couldn't put them in the new article.
 * You need to back up your view with Wikipedia policy, not with other articles. Perhaps they are all justified to exist, perhaps not.  I don't see what details I left out but if you would be specific, there is no reason why we couldn't put them in the new article.




 * Nothing new here.


 * Repeat—Bottom line is you still have not supported your position with Wikipedia policy as I have. This is the most important point in determining consensus.  Please do that.  Anything else is wasting our time and increasing the barrier to entry of this discussion.
 * You criticize me for edit warring and now you have chosen to take it up a notch. Your recent edits to this article and to my own edits on this talk page are a transparent attempt to irritate me.--Taylornate (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to everyone, and with compliments on the work put in on the discussion, I respectfully vote to MERGE. Best regards, Cliff (a/k/a &#34;Uploadvirus&#34;) (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm ignoring this discussion from now on. I've added all the redirected pages to my todo list instead.  It will be very interesting to see this article expand on the "extrinsic properties" of Abductor pollicis brevis muscle. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you plan to do with them, but once this ridiculous edit war dies down, it would be great if you would come back and we could have a real discussion on what to do about content.
 * It looks like I made an error and you found it... Congratulations?--Taylornate (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In line with WP:AGF, please avoid assuming that edits are being done to irritate you. The reason I added links to the muscle names on your page was because I was restoring those articles, so it made sense to update your article to link to them. As far as alphabetizing the muscles on your list and fixing the duplicated content and typos, that's reading a little too much into it. Alphabetical order just makes it easier to keep track of the articles being discussed since they're easy to confuse. Y12J (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See my reply here and note that I also linked to WP:TPO in my comment above.--Taylornate (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Images
Here are some images from the merged pages that I haven't put in the article but could maybe go in.


 * Dissection

RFC on reversion of merge
Should the merge of articles on individual muscles to Extrinsic_extensor_muscles_of_the_hand be reverted?--Taylornate (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A brief history

 * December 28: I post on two project pages proposing the merge.
 * With an explicit go-ahead from user:Jmh649, I start work on the merge.
 * December 29: Merge completed. The individual articles merged are listed at the top of this page.
 * January 8: user:Arcadian makes a comment . I missed this comment, but looking back, it seems moot because I didn't merge away hundreds of articles and making a case for the merge is exactly what I did when I proposed it on the two project pages.
 * From December 29 to February 19, the merge attracts only the above comment by Arcadian and a passing comment by user:Xris0 who did not follow up on my response.
 * February 19: An edit war erupts when user:Y12J reverts the merge. There is discussion between us until he loses interest.  A few editors support the merge and a few are against.  user:Arcadian and user:Fama_Clamosa continue the edit war but refuse to participate in discussion, and the three of us are blocked for 24 hours.--Taylornate (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A go-ahead on the Medicine wikiProject is kinda irrelevant, since it's an Anatomy article. Someone frequenting that project would generally favour distinct article status of diseases over muscles. Y12J (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Why merge?
This is not about the individual muscles being important or unimportant, it is about how to best present the information. Pick up any anatomy text—chances are, there is not a separate chapter for each muscle. Rather, they are usually discussed in logical groups. To discuss each muscle in a vacuum results in much redundancy, and puts unnecessary burden on the reader to consolidate. For example, take this quote from the merge: ''The ECRL is supplied by the radial nerve and the ECRB by its deep branch. The remaining extrinsic hand extensors are supplied by the posterior interosseus nerve, another branch of the radial nerve.''This is much more understandable to the reader than parsing nine similar statements from nine different articles. The individual pages are full of such redundancies, and they are short. These are two reasons to merge given in WP:MERGE.--Taylornate (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support merge All the muscles of the hand should be discussed together. If and only if this page becomes to long should aspect be split off into sub articles. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support merge This is a logical group. Writing about them as a group allows specifics to be discussed in the context of the generalities, and comparisons can be made without jumping to four other pages. Hyperlinks have their limits and this is a nice length. The summary table more than justifies the merge. While the table is admirable, I would suggest a short summary in text to serve as redirect targets to the salient features of each muscle. It strikes me as being a useful feature to be able to type the name of a specific extensor, and go right a synopsis. If anyone can figure out how to write a general-interest, article-length discussion of one muscle, we can always end the redirect and put a tag on it.Novangelis (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need to find a better way of handling the redirects. I'm not sure I like the idea of a prose summary for each muscle, I think that would get unwieldy.  Is there key information you think the table is missing?  We could have the redirects jump to a row in the table, but skipping the article could confuse the reader.  We could offer a link to a page on Wiktionary for a quick definition and specific hi-lighted picture.  Not sure if it is technically feasible, but at the top of the article, detect that they were redirected from a particular muscle, and offer the specific Wiktionary link—For a quick definition of _____, see _____ on Wiktionary.--Taylornate (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not this way Reviewing older Extensor indicis muscle and current article, the stand alone article was much more understandable. This article needs a rewrite -- the initialism soup (ECRL...) make it very difficult to follow, and having many of the hyperlinks link back to the top of the article is confusing. Redirect for things like "Extensor indicis muscle" should got to a specific place. I think having an overview article is a good idea, but not at the expense of loss of existing content. (The summary table should list the full names of the muscles, too.) Nobody Ent 19:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify, do you support improving the existing merge, doing it over, or reverting it? I agree that there are probably too many abbreviations, but that can be fixed easily.  I'm not sure what you mean by loss of existing content—a merge does not eliminate content.--Taylornate (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Improving. It reads like an anatomy textbook rather than an explanation for the general reader. e.g. What does "distal to" mean? Nobody Ent 02:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support merge As explained above.--Taylornate (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support merge It seems to me to be much more logical to discuss the muscles of the hand together, as in other texts.Watermelon mang (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you planning on restoring the content you deleted into the merged article? --Arcadian (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This feels accusatory and not constructive to the RFC. Please state and support your position on keeping the merge vs. reverting it.--Taylornate (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you plan on restoring the content is central to the RFC. Do you plan on fixing this? --Arcadian (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what deleted content you are referring to, but I would be interested in collaborating to continue to improve the article. I don't think my plans are central to this RFC, as anyone can work on the article.  The central issue is whether we should have one article or several.--Taylornate (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This RFC is not valid. It's 's POV and not a NPOV description of what happened. Don't force us all to bang our heads against the Taylornate wall: if you don't care about muscles ignore those articles. If you want to add content to Wikipedia, start at Hand (I did). --Fama Clamosa(talk) 20:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The RFC question is neutral. The description of what happened is part of the discussion.  It is not required to be neutral and you are free to disagree.--Taylornate (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here I go banging my head on the Taylornate wall: "not required to be neutral"? Are you serious?  Are you familiar with WP:NPOV?  This RFC is not neutral and not valid.  You got this silly edit war started by repeatedly referring to your fake consensus on the merge.  And here we all are pretending it didn't happen. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the second sentence in WP:NPOV. It applies to encyclopedic content, not discussion.  By striking out the discussion here, you are being disruptive. If you continue to do it I will reopen our case on the edit warring noticeboard because it needs to stop.--Taylornate (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you are the one being disruptive. You've deleted the content of a range of articles without a valid reason and then started an edit war with everyone who opposed it.  And then you continue to call everyone else vandal and accuse them of edit warring.  And on this page you continue to describe you lies as the only valid thing to discuss.  Here we go again banging our heads on the Taylornate wall.  Apparently you were ready to waste perhaps half a year rambling on Talk:Demi Moore.  How long will you waste our time on this page? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, Fama. If the change that Taylornate proposes improves the encyclopedia, the change will persist. If it doesn't, it won't. If he doesn't respond, it won't. Right now we are waiting to learn more about his plan to fix the problems with his preferred version of the content. If he doesn't fix the problem (or can't/won't see the problem), then you have as much right to restore the content as he has to try to redirect it away. --Arcadian (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Arcadian, if you are waiting for my response to your last question, I made it here. Also, to me it looks like you are advising Fama Clamosa to ignore the outcome of this RFC if it is not to his liking. I hope that wasn't your intention.--Taylornate (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your linked comment, in its entirely, was "I'm not sure exactly what deleted content you are referring to, but I would be interested in collaborating to continue to improve the article. I don't think my plans are central to this RFC, as anyone can work on the article.". To win your case, you need to demonstrate that your merger is an improvement. You can't use as a comparison some imaginary future version of the content that you hope other people will create someday. If you need more time, let us know how much time you think you need; otherwise we have to respond to what you've actually done, not what you hope to do someday. --Arcadian (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to play guessing games about what problems you might perceive about the work I've done. I think dictating to me what I need to do differently to win my case is a bit strange considering my support so far. If you think my work was so bad that it should be reverted, then state your opposition and it will be considered when the RFC is closed.--Taylornate (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody has objected to the existence of the Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand page that you created. The issue is with the 8 different articles you are trying to remove, which contain much more information than the summary article you wrote. I'll put the edit histories of the eight articles here to make them easy to review: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. If you don't remember what you deleted, please click on those links. To refresh your memory, you were the only editor that tried to redirect the content away, you tried ten times, and three different editors independently restored the content. You claim that nobody was willing to discuss things with you, but at many times over the last several months many other editors have explained their opposition to your content deletion. You currently have the opposite of consensus. I can think of a dozen problems with what you've written above, including not only content but technical limitations of MediaWiki, but there's nothing to debate if you won't articulate your plan. Are you planning to expand the Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand to restore the content you deleted, or are you claming that the information you deleted does not belong in Wikipedia? --Arcadian (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really have anything to add that I didn't already say in my outline of the history of this dispute. Your summary here is pretty slanted.  If you think there is consensus against the merge at this point you are delusional but that is ok.  To count the people edit warring against me but not the people stating their support is dishonest, as is your attempt to justify your refusal to discuss as you participated in the edit war.  Again, I'm not going to play guessing games.  If you think there are problems, you should at least put forth the effort of pointing them out specifically.  Don't pretend you don't know that a merge involves redirects or that this RFC is about a merge.  Note that this RFC is ending in a week or so and if you want to state your position on it, you should do it before then.--Taylornate (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Not this way
Not this way baby...
 * My statement of personal interest: Nil. Until I read the RFC I had never even known of the article, whether split or united. My impression, as that of a disinterested reader: a nasty possessive mess that is sabotaging both an important theme and proper functioning of the most important meta-pillar of WP: the constructive conveying of information, and where practical, of education. The guilty parties can relax; they won't know who they are. FWIW, I generally am in favour of articles sized according to the coherence of a theme, though this is not easy in some themes (such as anatomy, where one finds that practically everything is attached to everything else... or else...) but that is largely a function of the writer's skill and grasp of the topic, and his ability to structure TOC and topic and links to related material. The plaints of Nobody Ent might seem naively irritating to anatomy textbookworms, but his very dissatisfaction is diagnostic of some of the problems involved. The alphabet soup might seem impressively professional, but in a medium like WP it simply is rotten writing; this is neither paper copy, nor personal notes; abbreviations rarely are justified beyond DDT or RNA. If the reader doesn't know his nostril from his sinistral or his distal from his dexter, that just might be why he is reading the article; knowing the terms in anticipation isn't his problem or responsibility, it is the author's. WP's linkage facility is magic, but it only works if the author works it. All but the most trivial terms should be linked, and that includes distal, or even (horrors!) proximal.


 * Now, linkage and the writer' skills are crucial to decision to split or merge. It is no good appealing to the gallery for a democratic decision. Asides should be dealt with by links, either to external articles or sections within the same article, as appropriate. Major changes or coherence of theme should be managed (operative word!) by appropriate splitting or merging. If the author cannot fit the article into the TOC, or the TOC onto one page, that is a broad hint. Short of that, it is a matter of taste. Conversely, apart from stubs, any article that has no TOC or does not fill a page rings other alarm bells. There are many other concerns of course, but I can hardly cover all the points of structure and flow here. In either event, one expedient that is totally invalid, is omission of pertinent data. It is no good shouting down Arcadian; if you have omitted information in your merges, your worm shall not die.


 * Bottom line: never mind the RFC; whether good faith or bad faith it is irrelevant as it stands. Never mind the squabbling and grandstanding; in their current form they amount to vandalism. Get back to the workbench and make sure that (almost) everyone who is serious about it can access the material handily and read the material comfortably and understand the material easily. All the constructive material, please note, not just omitting whatever some authors and editors magisterially indulge themselves in finding obvious or tedious in their insider superiority. In WP you need very little justification for including coherent material in context; you need crushing justification for omitting or obfuscating it. JonRichfield (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already agreed with Nobody Ent's point about the abbreviations and I'll go ahead and agree about wiki-linking. I won't even claim to be a good writer.  This RFC is necessary because some editors seem to believe that these articles should never be merged.  To be completely clear, do you support improving the existing merge, reverting it, or are you neutral?--Taylornate (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While your question seems reasonable in context, there is a problem. It is the wrong question. Any sufficiently complex subject can justify merged or split articles. It also can include information better included or omitted. The right questions would concern the value of the product. If splitting interferes with smooth reading when the user is trying to master relevant information, or omitting information leaves the reader nonplussed, that is bad. If merging overwhelms the reader, that is bad. Not only is there no simple answer, but if there were, someone would not like it. Write an article that is comprehensive, comprehensible, and assimilable. Get a few crits if you can. Post it and let the chips fall where they may. If it takes ten articles, post ten. Ignore the fact that someone else could do it better; let them improve it later if they can. So the separate article that you consider merging still exists elsewhere? So what? If your article(s) can be good enough, someone else will bitch about them and they will fall to attrition. You aren't going to get anything good out of the current mud wrestling match anyway. Must run. JonRichfield (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not this way. It should be clear to any closing admin that Taylornate is trying to delete content, and is unable or unwilling to actually articulate why. It should also be clear from his comments above that his technical understanding of how MediaWiki works is shaky. It's okay not to understand something; it's less okay to break things while you learn. Primum non nocere. This merge is also medically unsound: the muscles of the hand can be grouped in at least six different clinically significant ways: (a) by the nerve (b) by the vasculature (c) by the compartment (d) extensor/flexor (e) thenar/hypothenar (f) superficial/deep (g) those that do/don't extend beyond the hand. To merge away the individual article for muscles of the hand (each of which dates back to at least 2005) would be like merging away 27 articles because they're already covered in European Union, or merging the articles for Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, and George Clooney into Ocean's Eleven (2001 film). The orthopedic surgeon, the physical therapist, the comparative anatomist, and the neurologist would all group the muscles of the hand in different ways, and if they were all grouped together (using such unidiomatic phrasing that it only appears here four times), it makes the articles that link here less clear. Finally, there are only four images on this merged page! Compare that to the number of images on the pages Taylornate is trying to merge away. These images aren't redundant: you have to look at anatomic structures from multiple angles or you don't understand them at all. The proposed change is a clear violation of Merging. --Arcadian (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would hope if the closing admin were interested in who has been willing or unwilling to articulate anything about this article, he would compare the activity of the relevant parties on this talk page pre-RFC.
 * I would also like to state for the record that I would not be in favor of merging the above "comparisons" for obvious reasons.
 * I asserted very early on that there might be a more appropriate grouping, so obviously I would not be opposed to adjusting that.
 * The section of images I posted on this page for possible inclusion speaks against the assertion that I am trying to "merge them away". Many of these articles shared the exact same images.  That was one redundancy that lead me to merge.--Taylornate (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible compromise?

 * I find this merger highly unhelpful. Practically all human muscles have separate pages on Wikipedia and I strongly believe that should stay this way. Particularily I miss the useful infoboxes which can usually be found on the right-hand side on the anatomy articles which give all the main information in a nutshell. However I can see the logic behind the merger, so I would like to suggest the current page be preserved as a summary of the extrinsic extensors as long as the original articles are restored with all their content. If Taylornate wishes to create more summary articles he is welcome to do so, but I would appreciate it if all the separate anatomy articles were left as they are. Manfi (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be more helpful if you would explain why you believe this. What do you dislike about the summary table in this article?  What are your other reasons for finding the merge unhelpful?  How could this article be more useful?
 * See WP:Merge. When a merge is performed, the individual articles are redirected.  See reason #2: Overlap.  Keeping the individual articles after a merge results in complete overlap of scope.  If this article becomes too lengthy, then we can start to split it up.  Until then, the redirects should stay.--Taylornate (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to continue the edit war, but after reading the above comments it seems to me that most users want to keep the original pages. Apart from that I would like to use them for study purposes, so please leave them. Manfi (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how you reached this conclusion. Most of the editors who participated in this RFC have stated their support of the merge.--Taylornate (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Manfi's proposal. --Arcadian (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also Support The original articles should be retained. The overview page is good, but as has already been brought up, the muscles can be grouped and classified according to many shared characteristics, not simply whether or not they're extrinsic extensors, plus data and legibility is lost in the new page that's better presented in the originals. They already need the room to exist, as well as to continue growing. Y12J (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are a couple of arguments for my proposal:
 * The original articles had useful pictures in which the muscle was clearly marked. In the merged article these images aren't accessible and one has to click on the main image and enlarge it in order to be able to read the muscles' names.
 * The articles contained handy infoboxes with the relevant information on origin, insertion etc. I don't dislike your summery table, in fact I find it useful. However it is tedious to scroll down the article and look for the facts one is interested in, when they could be found so much more easily by simply opening the respective separate page. You have stated that "discussing muscles separately is inherently inefficient" (20 February). While this may apply to anatomy textbooks, a website is an entirely different matter.
 * One example for a summary article on an anatomically and clinically significant group is the page on the facial muscles. The muscles in this group all have individual pages, even though many of them are stubs and there is some overlap (e.g. the Zygomaticus minor muscle).
 * Earlier on (12 January) you stated that "There is simply not enough material for them to each have a separate article". I can't see any reason why these muscles should be less significant than all the other anatomical terms that all have individual articles (e.g. the pretty unimportant but amusing Tragicus). Are you planning to merge the hundreds of short articles on every single muscle, artery, vein or nerve, and only split them up again if the articles "become too lengthy" (2 April)? Isn't it way more simple to keep them as they are?


 * Now in case I haven't been clear, my suggestion is too keep both the separate articles as well as your merged summary page. You are welcome to create more summaries if you wish to and can link them to the individual pages. That way your good work is preserved, we can stop discussing this (please, let's not start rambling about Wikipedia policy) and everyone is happy. Manfi (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Similar to the hi-lighted images you are referring to, we could make a schematic image in which all muscles are easily identified.
 * Tedious to scroll down to a table? I don't buy it.  If what you want is fast access to a few simple facts, I think what you're looking for is a dictionary.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
 * ...How so?
 * Zygomaticus minor muscle has been less than 100 words in length since it was created 7 years ago and falls completely within the scope of facial muscles. It is an obvious candidate for merging per WP:Merge, for the same reasons I have explained on this page.
 * I am not planning on merging a great number of articles as I just don't have the time for it. I do believe that many of the articles you are referring to, including tragicus, should be merged.
 * ...How so?
 * Zygomaticus minor muscle has been less than 100 words in length since it was created 7 years ago and falls completely within the scope of facial muscles. It is an obvious candidate for merging per WP:Merge, for the same reasons I have explained on this page.
 * I am not planning on merging a great number of articles as I just don't have the time for it. I do believe that many of the articles you are referring to, including tragicus, should be merged.
 * I am not planning on merging a great number of articles as I just don't have the time for it. I do believe that many of the articles you are referring to, including tragicus, should be merged.
 * I am not planning on merging a great number of articles as I just don't have the time for it. I do believe that many of the articles you are referring to, including tragicus, should be merged.


 * Sure it is, but that isn't a valid reason to proceed that way. The simplest thing to do would be to not have Wikipedia.
 * I have already explained why this would violate Wikipedia policy. An article that receives a proper merge is not a summary; it contains all of the information.
 * Wikipedia policy is central to determining consensus. Per WP:Consensus, "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."  I have yet to see a clear policy-based view against this merge.--Taylornate (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already explained why this would violate Wikipedia policy. An article that receives a proper merge is not a summary; it contains all of the information.
 * Wikipedia policy is central to determining consensus. Per WP:Consensus, "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."  I have yet to see a clear policy-based view against this merge.--Taylornate (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is central to determining consensus. Per WP:Consensus, "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."  I have yet to see a clear policy-based view against this merge.--Taylornate (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to a couple of your relevant points:


 * Multiple images are needed in order to understand anatomical terms. One schematic image representing the muscles in question would be useful for your merged article, but not nearly as practical as the numerous images on the separate pages your merger has removed.
 * Any distinction between "important" and "unimportant" anatomical structures is arbitrary. I believe that by merging these articles you are setting a precedent for numerous additional (and pointless) mergers of any other short anatomy pages (let's not start an acrimonious discussion on merging the ~21 facial muscles!). While I am not in favour of merely keeping Wikipedia the way it is, such a move would require considerable consensus, which you definitely have not gathered on this issue.
 * Practically all the terms listed in the Terminologia anatomica have got separate pages (this has worked perfectly well for years), which is also the case on other language versions of WP. Why shouldn't the topics you have merged be important enough to deserve separate articles, unlike the hundreds of other anatomical terms?
 * According to WP:Consensus, "In deletion discussions (as of these individual articles - Manfi), no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept."
 * You have stated that keeping both the merged article as well as the individual pages would create significant overlap. This overlap has only been created by you copying the content and further editing could resolve this problem. Furthermore, I have found looking at anatomy from different viewpoints, both summarised and specific, very helpful for comprehension, so I don't see any problem in a bit of overlap.
 * There are many anatomical and clinical ways of grouping muscles. Your classification as "extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand" is unidiomatic (to quote Arcadian) and as a medical student I am not aware of any relevant sources using this expression, including the standard anatomical terminology (which, on the other hand, does use the names of the deleted muscles).
 * I can easily understand your opposition to users wanting to revert your changes. However, no one is planning to delete your article! Keeping both your article as well as the individual pages seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable compromise most editors can agree on.
 * Finally, to quote WP:BURO, "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures" (such as the overlap rule). If bending a couple of WP policies means we can resolve this discussion in a way everyone is happy about, then let's please do so. -- Manfi (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you overstate the variety of images on the merged pages. Many of them were the same image but with a different part hi-lighted.  How is that more practical than a single schematic image?  We can have more images in this article if needed.
 * Merging an article and calling its subject unimportant are two completely unrelated concepts. We aren't calling any muscles unimportant.
 * I've already addressed this.
 * This is a merge, not a deletion.
 * That is what a merge does. Please try to understand WP:Merge.
 * I've already addressed why this would be against policy. Why not put the individual entries on Wiktionary as I suggested in my last post?
 * I've already stated that I would be open to discussion on the best way to group the muscles.
 * Already addressed. Also, most editors have already agreed.  Editors against the merge have been a vocal minority.
 * Please see previously posted definition of consensus. You don't seem to be proposing a slight bending of rules.  Rather, your position does not seem to be supported at all by the rules.  If you are going to invoke WP:IAR then you will need to make a solid case (and build consensus) for why the rules in question are stopping you from making a good encyclopedia.--Taylornate (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, there is a link to the summary table in a hat note to aid readers looking for a quick reference.--Taylornate (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already addressed why this would be against policy. Why not put the individual entries on Wiktionary as I suggested in my last post?
 * I've already stated that I would be open to discussion on the best way to group the muscles.
 * Already addressed. Also, most editors have already agreed.  Editors against the merge have been a vocal minority.
 * Please see previously posted definition of consensus. You don't seem to be proposing a slight bending of rules.  Rather, your position does not seem to be supported at all by the rules.  If you are going to invoke WP:IAR then you will need to make a solid case (and build consensus) for why the rules in question are stopping you from making a good encyclopedia.--Taylornate (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, there is a link to the summary table in a hat note to aid readers looking for a quick reference.--Taylornate (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Already addressed. Also, most editors have already agreed.  Editors against the merge have been a vocal minority.
 * Please see previously posted definition of consensus. You don't seem to be proposing a slight bending of rules.  Rather, your position does not seem to be supported at all by the rules.  If you are going to invoke WP:IAR then you will need to make a solid case (and build consensus) for why the rules in question are stopping you from making a good encyclopedia.--Taylornate (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, there is a link to the summary table in a hat note to aid readers looking for a quick reference.--Taylornate (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, there is a link to the summary table in a hat note to aid readers looking for a quick reference.--Taylornate (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC closure
I'm closing this RFC for the following reasons:
 * It was scheduled to end one week ago. Soon before that date, the discussion seemed to have come to a logical end until Manfi joined.  I kept it open to avoid cutting off his thread.  I believe his thread and the RFC has run its course.
 * It has been tainted by (possibly unintentional) canvassing: Individual editors not previously involved in the RFC were notified on their talk pages of this request for remediation, which links to this page.
 * Y12J recently joined the RFC as a result of this canvassing. As an act of good faith, I ask that he move his comments outside the RFC section.

I'll leave this subsection open for now in case anyone wants to comment specifically on the closure. Obviously, discussion of the merge can continue outside the RFC section.--Taylornate (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In regard to your 2nd bullet's sub-bullet, I'd respectfully like my comments retained. I was involved with this issue beforehand, posting Feb 19 (the 2nd person besides yourself) in regards to this issue when you created the talk page. Had I known about the request for comment (you certainly didn't inform me about it) I would have liked to become involved earlier. It's odd how a bot informing me of a mediation discussion's canvassing yet starting an RfC to draw in new parties without bringing those you're disputing with into the conversation to air their side of things isn't. Y12J (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not inform you or any other individual editors about the RFC because that would have been wildly inappropriate. Your lack of willingness or ability to understand the most basic points of the relevant policies makes this discussion tiring and pointless.--Taylornate (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's impolite to convey assumptions about other editors' willingness, let's avoid mindreading please. As for ability: that could be a matter of time or conversation, initial lack of consensus doesn't denote a longterm impossibility of consensus. Discussion can indeed be tiring but I'm too optimistic to label it pointless. Y12J (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would have been an assumption for me not to consider unwillingness as a possibility. Regardless, you need to be both willing and able to understand the policies if you are to contribute to consensus building in a disagreement. I've put substantial effort into explaining why the policies support my position and at every step it seems like you don't understand or don't care and my effort is wasted.--Taylornate (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that's how it seems Taylor, but from some of our understanding, policy doesn't adequately support this merge. Readability is lost. Specific pictures are definitely lost. It's really just too much crammed together over an arbitrary property. For example: many of the muscles you redirect here aren't just extensors. This is obvious simply be how they're named: two are abductors. Not to mention that muscles could be grouped by the finger bone they attach two as opposed to the action they create. Sort of like how the rectus femoris can be grouped in with both the quads and hip flexors. Creating one or more grouping pages makes total sense, but not at the expense of the individual muscle articles. To quote Jerry Seinfeld: they do other things! Y12J (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Mediation request
As we seem to have reached an impasse, I have submitted a request for mediation on this issue.

Here's a brief summary of my arguments:

I am aware of the fact that several editors have agreed on the merger, but there have also been a considerable number of editors who have been quite vocal in their opposition and who have stated legitimate objections. While a couple of us who oppose the merge have been willing to compromise, you (Taylor) have failed to discuss any possible merits my proposed compromise (keeping both the new as well as the individual old articles) might have. I am aware that such a move might create significant overlap, but I believe that that issue might be easily resolved by further editing of the pages in question. There already are several WP articles on certain categories or groups of muscles such as the facial muscles, hamstrings and erector spinae muscles, or even the individual parts of the quadriceps femoris muscle, so I cannot see why the pages we are discussing couldn't coexist.

I would also like to remind you that according to the WP naming conventions for medicine-related articles Wikipedia pages on anatomy should use terms from the Terminologia anatomica, such as the names of the redirected muscle pages. Even though there are no conventions on naming groups of muscles, I believe the article you have created to be useful and I would be happy to collaborate in writing further summaries. As far as I can see most terms from the TA have separate pages and I believe it would require very large consensus to systematically reorganise all the anatomy pages on WP, as I think would be the logical consequence of completely merging the listed muscles. -- Manfi (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See my comment here.--Taylornate (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how the request for meditation just got rejected and will be deleted, this link may become inactive, suggest we archive the mediation request conversations here? Y12J (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said elsewhere, I see no objection. If Doctor No objects, let him sue. I for one am likely to contribute, with due deference to disapproving strictures by authoritative students. JonRichfield (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

/Archive Requests for mediation/Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand

I have archived the discussion on the mediation page using the above link. Manfi (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Template
Template:Muscles of upper limb includes links to many of these muscles. Simply changing these links to a redirect to this page damages the usefulness of this template. Yet another loss in data and navigation as a result of doing a merger. I don't question that we gain something in having an overview of extensor muscles, but I don't see the necessity of directing these beautiful articles to their stub-like mentions on this new page. It's possible to link the overview page in 'see also' (which I already did, this got reverted) so that people can benefit from the consolidated synopses, while still discussing the muscles individually. Y12J (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The template can be easily fixed by replacing the links to redirected articles with a single link to this article. A set of articles justifies a navigation template.  A navigation template does not justify a set of articles.  The rest of your points in this post have been addressed repeatedly.--Taylornate (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not addressed satisfactorily to all those involved. The template has value in its useof proper anatomical terms for specific muscles as opposed to limiting it to listing groupings of muscles. You'll notice it says "biceps brachii · brachialis" instead of just saying "elbow flexors", for example. There is value in listing pages by their individual names, and the template as well as Wikipedia lose this detail with the unnecessary merger based on a shared extensor function which trivializes other details each possesses on which they may differ. Y12J (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support creating a list of all muscles if we don't already have one. That list does not need to exist as a navigation template.--Taylornate (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirection of muscle articles
Folks, I've seen the warring that's been going on over all of these muscle articles, and it absolutely has to stop. The RFC above has been disputed, and it's arguable that it was not conducted as well as it should have been (though I do not offer any judgment on who was right and who was wrong). The edit war, which has been going on for way too long, has repeatedly turned a number of articles into redirects and back again. The articles in question are... I think we need to look for consensus regarding one simple question aimed just at settling the edit war. As an uninvolved admin, I'm offering to judge the consensus for you (and if necessary, I'll seek further help). So, here's the question... Please respond below (and please stick to answering the question, and avoid accusations, incivility, etc). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Extensor pollicis longus muscle
 * Extensor indicis muscle
 * Extensor pollicis brevis muscle
 * Extensor digitorum muscle
 * Extensor digiti minimi muscle
 * Extensor carpi ulnaris muscle
 * Extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle
 * Extensor carpi radialis longus muscle
 * Common extensor tendon
 * Abductor pollicis longus muscle
 * Should the above articles be redirected to Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand, or should they be kept as individual articles?
 * Keep as individual articles, for the reasons stated above. --Arcadian (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely keep as individual articles, but I have no objections to also keeping the new article. Some of us began discussing such an option here. Manfi (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I also have no objection to keeping the new article. --Arcadian (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we close this? As anyone reading the above can see, there is no serious debate over the correct outcome. --Arcadian (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect the articles. These articles were merged and per WP:Merge, a page that describes communal consensus, they should be redirected.  Per WP:Redirect, one reason to redirect is sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. The rationale I gave in the RFC for merging is quoted below:


 * To elaborate, these articles have been stagnant for a long time. Several of them are stub class and seem likely to remain that way for years to come. If someone wants to add more information on these muscles, they can add it to this article.  If it becomes too lengthy, it can then be split per WP:Split. In the RFC, several uninvolved editors supported the merge.
 * Per WP:Consensus (emphasis added), consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy . I have not seen a logical policy, guideline, or communal consensus-based reason for opposing the merge or redirection.  For other concerns, I have offered solutions.--Taylornate (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as individual articles per Arcadian and others. We can't keep that much material on one page. Hence creation of sub-pages is necessary. My very best wishes (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus
It's unfortunate that more people did not choose to offer their opinions here, but nevertheless, I think 2 weeks is enough time. Given that the condition prior to the dispute was that these separate articles all existed, the only two editors who have responded here have opined that the articles should be kept (for reasons outlined further up this page), and no reasons why they should be changed into redirects have been offered, I judge the consensus to be to retain all of the individual articles and to also retain the new general article. Any change to this should, in my opinion, require a new consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Zebedee, I told you it would take me a while to comment because I would be busy, and you said there was no rush. As a side note, I also disagree with your statement that the articles all existed at the start of the dispute.--Taylornate (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, you said you would need a week before you could comment, and it's been two weeks. But if you want to make a comment above, I'll be happy to consider it and reconsider my judgment of the consensus - but please make it asap. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. I have added my position.--Taylornate (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I've had another look over this whole thing, and I still believe I'm seeing a consensus to compromise and keep both the individual articles and the summary article. The overall general policy at Wikipedia is to retain good sourced information, not delete it, and I really don't see any policy-based arguments that support the removal of the potentially (and in some cases actually) more detailed articles and only keep the summary article. And there are no policies that say Wikipedia has to be arranged the same way as a printed book - we have much more flexible navigation mechanisms. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is not a summary and has only been called that by editors on one side of the issue. It is the recipient of a merge and if the merge was done correctly it contains all the information from the other articles.  Redirecting the articles to the recipient article that contains all the information is not a deletion or removal, is fundamentally part of merging, and is explicitly supported by policy. If we do not redirect the source articles after a merge, we are left with 100% duplication which completely defeats the purpose of a merge, which is to reduce duplication. I gave two policy-based reasons for performing the merge.
 * I want to emphasize that I am not trying to remove or delete content. I have put significant effort into this merge and if it is truly incomplete I am willing to continue to work.--Taylornate (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. My purpose here is not to join in a continuation of the dispute, and I am not going to do that. My purpose was simply to call the consensus as I saw it, and that is what I have done. If you wish to continue the argument, you'll have to find someone else to argue with. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to join the content dispute. I am asking you why you called consensus the way you did. In your summary you seem to state that my position is to delete content (it's not) and that I did not support my position with policy (I did, very clearly).--Taylornate (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I read your words, I read the words of others, and I read the whole of the preceding debate - I'm not now going to go over the details of every opinion that I read and considered in order to try to satisfy you. I've given my third party opinion on how I see the consensus, so you should either accept it or go follow the next step in the dispute resolution process. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your effort, Boing. So what is going to happen now? -- Manfi (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The articles are already in the state that I believe the consensus supports, so I don't see that anything more needs to be done. Changing away from the consensus should not be done without pursuing further dispute resolution steps. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify my previous statement. If all the previous content could fit on one page than yes merge. If all the content cannot fit on one page than have an overview page and subpages to deal with each muscle individually. Many large topics have sub articles, schizophrenia as an example. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)