Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 7

Sexual differentiation articles
We have quite a few under our scope, which is very confusing because there doesn't seem to be a definite structure. I was wondering if any other users had encountered some duplicate articles? If we can get a list of the relevant articles, we might be able to move content around, and add some see also/main links, so that it is more comprehensible for readers. Currently (excluding medical content), related articles I can find include:
 * Sexual dimorphism
 * Sex-determination system
 * XY sex-determination system
 * Sexual differentiation
 * Sexual differentiation in humans
 * Maternal influence on sex determination
 * Sex differences in humans part of series as detailed below
 * Development of the reproductive system
 * Development of the urinary and reproductive organs
 * Mesonephric duct
 * Wolffian system
 * Paramesonephric duct
 * Development of the gonads
 * Secondary sex characteristic
 * Feminization
 * Virilization
 * Testis determining factor (SRY)

Problem: this set of articles is difficult to read and access. As a reader there doesn't appear to be a 'main' article or set of articles, or a coherent way of linking these relevant articles.

Solution?
 * 1) Provide interlinks
 * 2) Merge some if possible
 * 3) Integrate into a navbox for access. Here? Human group differences

Contacting relevant Wikipedians
I am sure I have seen some very similar articles as well, about male/female differentiation. Ping to who might be more aware of some relevant articles. Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * A good portion of these also are not within our scope, but are rather within the scope of WikiProject Biology or WikiProject Genetics and WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology; so I feel that any mergers in that respect should include those WikiProjects, not just WP:Anatomy. A couple or few of them are also tagged with only the WP:MED banner, which likely is not best. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: There are a really nice set of articles under Sex differences in humans and I've pinged some of the relevant editors below (sorry if I haven't included any editors, I am not sure what the relevant WikiProject would be). --LT910001 (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ping to, , , , and . By way of explanation, I got these names from non-reverted editors with a couple of edits on the history page of Sex differences in human physiology here:  This page has an easy-to-read, navigable layout so I think these editors might have good advice what to do here.  --LT910001 (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Since you pinged Memills, I've decided to ping Kaldari for better balance; they are generally on two opposite ends with regard to sex differences/gender topics. Flyer22 (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Would love to hear thoughts on how we can improve this structure! --LT910001 (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

To be clear I'm not advocating for a bunch of mergers, but I find the current structure very confusing as a reader, and I'd like to fix that up. --LT910001 (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of these should not be merged. But a few? Sex determination and differentiation (human), for example, should be merged into Sexual differentiation. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One important thing to keep in mind is that the human-specific articles should be located at human-specific titles. At present, the Sexual differentiation article seems to be solely about humans, but sexual differentiation occurs in other organisms as well. The general article seems to be currently located at Sex-determination system. I would recommend moving Sexual differentiation (the human-specific article) to Sexual differentiation in humans and moving Sex-determination system (the general article) to Sexual differentiation; the human-specific article should be a subarticle of the general sexual differentiation article. Neelix (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Neelix, I don't fully agree that human-specific articles should be located at human-specific titles. I somewhat agree on that matter, but not fully. We recently had an extensive discussion on that topic; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 5. And as shown in that WP:RfC discussion, WP:Anatomy and WP:MED are not fully in agreement on that matter, especially not WP:MED. Nor is the general Wikipedia community, from what I've seen, no matter what the closer of that discussion stated (I disagreed with that closer in the Discussion part of that WP:RfC). One of the examples I gave in that discussion for humans having primacy at the general article title is the Pregnancy article versus the Pregnancy (mammals) article. Like I also noted in that discussion, when it comes to anatomy and/or medical articles, it's often that the anatomy and/or medical topic has barely been studied in non-humans animals, which is one reason why such articles are often human-dominated with a section for non-human animals, as shown by MEDMOS (which applies to medical and/or anatomy articles); this makes WP:Content forking unneeded and undesirable in these cases. The other reason that content under the general title is often human dominated or completely human-focused is because our readers are usually looking for the human, not the non-human, material for the topic. Instead of repeating myself here for why I don't fully agree with you about articles titles in this case, and because I have no interest in rehashing that discussion, it would be better if you read that discussion and see what the various viewpoints are on that matter. I'm thinking that you and I generally don't agree on article title matters, if the People (magazine) discussions and now this one are any indication.


 * As for the Sexual differentiation article: It is not solely about humans, since a lot of what is discussed there applies to more than just humans. And in that case, I would go along with your feelings about general titles being the titles of articles that are not solely or mostly focused on humans. The Sexual differentiation article should stay as it is, but should be made more general with regard to other animals if that is needed. If a Sexual differentiation in humans article is needed, similar to how we have a Sex differences in humans, then so be it. And take note that "Sexual differentiation in humans" and "Sex differences in humans" are not the same thing (not fully anyway), so there is no need for a merge in that case. What is redundant is the Sex determination and differentiation (human) article. It's already covered by the Sex-determination system and Sexual differentiation articles, and the material in it should be merged with either or both of those articles (taking certain pieces from it that might fit better in one or the other). As for moving the Sex-determination system article to the Sexual differentiation article, I completely disagree. The sex-determination system topic is WP:Notable in its own right and should not be bogged down by the general sexual differentiation information. The sex-determination system covers a specific aspect of sexual differentiation, while sexual differentiation covers the general material on that matter (including psychological and behavioral differences). Flyer22 (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If we are treating Sex-determination system as a subarticle of Sexual differentiation, I would recommend adding a section to Sexual differentiation that summarizes the Sex-determination system article. At present, the way the articles are organized suggests that sexual differentiation and sex determination are synonymous. If they are, then "sex determination" should be offered as an alternate bolded title in the lead of the Sexual differentiation article. If they aren't synonyms, then it might be wise to move the Sex determination disambiguation page to Sex determination (disambiguation) and create a new article at Sex determination that summarizes information from the relevant subarticles (Sex-determination system, Testis determining factor, Maternal influence on sex determination, etc.). Neelix (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Neelix, I'll alert WikiProject Biology, WikiProject Genetics and WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology to this discussion; I suggested above that they should be involved in deciding on whether or not any of these mergers should happen and what should be done if mergers are not to happen regarding this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks for your suggestions . It seems we already have a human-focused article (Sex determination and differentiation (human)), and I see where you're coming from, that'd be useful to have a place that summarises and acts as the parent article for the human side of things., I was hoping we could get some fresh ideas by engaging other users, using De Bono's Green Hat - that is, generate a lot of new ideas first, and then discuss their viability. It's counterproductive at best and deters engagement if we start immediately rebutting ideas from outside the project. --LT910001 (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * LT910001, when I consider something detrimental to improving Wikipedia or otherwise a setback instead of an improvement, I consider it best to note that sooner than later. That is productive to me. If you had suggested that we wait for a variety of outside comments before rebutting, I would have likely waited, however. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, I think that's fair enough. I hope other editors continue to engage with us in the future. It is otherwise quite an isolated existence here--LT910001 (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding this edit you just made, I have to state that I don't see what problem you have with the Secondary sex characteristic, Feminization, Virilization and Testis determining factor pages. And I only stated "pages" there because the Feminization page is not an article; it's a disambiguation page. They, with the exception of the aforementioned disambiguation page, are linked to when needed, and the Secondary sex characteristic and Testis determining factor articles get linked to quite enough. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a list of 'problem' articles, just a list of major articles in the same topic area. Having this list is useful for any discussion, and also for later reference if a template is made. I'm certainly not suggesting any course of action, but I think the current state of affairs is quite confusing. The answer to the question: what are differences between the genders, and how did this happen? which is at the core of these articles has an answer given in piecemeal over an extensive number of articles, and a user can only happen randomly on links to discover them. Some of my proposals below (particularly making a template) may help address this. --LT910001 (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal/Updates
Thanks for your comments above. This is what I propose: --LT910001 (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Centralise The Wolffian System and Sexual differentiation, both of which are in fact articles in general form about sexual differentiation in humans, to a single article: Sexual differentiation in humans
 * 2) * Update: renamed to Wolffian system, and discussion regarding whether or not to merge article with Mesonephric duct is underway. --LT910001 (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --LT910001 (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Redirect Sexual differentiation to Sexual differentiation in humans and add a hatnote stating that readers may also wish to view the Sex determination system article if they are interested in non-human species.
 * 2) * Update: discussion ongoing regarding a merge or division of human/animal content. --LT910001 (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus to maintain the two pages separately, documenting human and animal content as appropriate. --LT910001 (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Document these articles logically, using the template above (Template:Human group differences)
 * ✅ created and applied Template:Sex determination and differentiation --LT910001 (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Merge what reliably-sourced information exists, if any, in Maternal influence on sex determination to Sexual differentiation in humans
 * 2) * Update: per comments, merge proposed with XY sex-determination system --LT910001 (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Merge Development of the human reproductive system and Development of the urinary and reproductive organs, moving any content relating to the urinary system in depth to Urinary system
 * Per what I stated here, the Development of the reproductive system article should not have been moved to the Development of the human reproductive system. Flyer22 (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Development of the urinary and reproductive organs renamed to Development of the urinary system. --LT910001 (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge minor calyx and major calyx?
The articles, minor calyx and major calyx, are virtually identical except for a line or two of text at the beginning. This leads to confusion because Calyx is a disambiguation page listing a dozen meanings of the term (including these, but many others unrelated to kidneys), and because there are two kinds of "kidney" calyces, there are a half dozen redirects from terms like Renal calyx and Calyx (kidney) which merely redirect to the disambiguation page (and therefor not to any article on kidney calyces). bd2412 T 19:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd support merging them back together. They originally were one article in 2006, and split into these two. No significant expansion has come since. If there ever is expansion, they can always be split again. Since the original article they came from was Calyx (kidney), that should be the page to merge to, in order to keep the history with the correct article. However, I think "Renal calyx" is a better title. So after the merge, Calyx (kidney) should be renamed to Renal calyx. This also goes along with WP:NCDAB, as per the natural disambiguation rather than parenthetical disambiguation. --Scott Alter (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Since the major calyx appears to be nothing more than a bundle of minor calyxes, the collected concept is more like Toe, for which we have a single article to which titles like Little toe, Ring toe, and Middle toe (and technical names like Hallux) redirect. I will give this another 24 hours for discussion, and then I'll do it. bd2412  T 13:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. So if there are no objections, remember to merge them in to Calyx (kidney). Renaming the article to Renal calyx will then require administrator intervention with a db-move tag. --Scott Alter (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not for me, it won't. ;-) bd2412  T 02:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers! bd2412  T 02:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Mesonephric duct / Wolffian duct
I'd like to ask whether users think that the articles Mesonephric duct and Paramesonephric duct should be renamed to Wolffian duct and Mullerian duct* (*with proper typography). This is per a discussion with here: Talk:Mesonephric_duct. Currently the primary articles are mesonephric/paramesonephric.

Reasons to change:
 * Historically, the eponymous ducts are the more prevalent terms in literature, although they may be converging
 * This may mean that the terms are more common to our readers
 * There is varying acceptance in other encyclopedias, with EB having an article under both titles (which is a little confusing...)

Reasons to retain the status quo:
 * Mesonephric appears to be the commonly-accepted term in Terminologia Embryologica
 * Per, the titles parallel other embryological structures (pronephros, mesonephros, ...) (Talk:Mesonephric_duct)
 * The articles have historically been titled this on Wiki and seem to have been accepted by readers, evidenced by a lack of commentary over the last 8 years

Comments
I'd invite the opinions of other editors on this. I do not feel strongly either way, but think it's healthy for this issue to be discussed and our opinions recorded at some point. --LT910001 (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Do consider taking the time to read the aforementioned (and brief) discussion LT910001 and I had; I placed more emphasis on the Wolffian system terminology (specifically "Wolffian system" or "Mesonephric duct" -- per WP:Common name and MEDMOS) than on the Wolffian duct terminology. And as for status quo, the Wolffian system article existed for years, but was recently merged into the Sexual differentiation in humans article, and then its title was redirected to the Mesonephric duct article, by LT910001. And the Paramesonephric duct article was titled Mullerian duct for years until Arcadian moved it in 2011; this is why the lead of that article still currently begins with the Mullerian duct wording; also notice the emphasis of that terminology in the article.

LT910001 has alerted WP:MED to this discussion at my suggestion. I suggested it because these topics also concern the medical field and therefore Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Article titles, and because WP:MED has a lot more participants than WP:Anatomy and is significantly more active as a WikiProject than WP:Anatomy. Flyer22 (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Confusion about cortex layers
I struck upon a number of articles which I find quite ambiguous. For one, not all cortexes which come up in the articles have their own entries, and those that do contradict each other frequently. The articles I am talking about are at least: They contradict each other wildly, at least on how many layers are in each type of cortex. I'm not really sure how to proceed as my knowledge in this area is rather limited. Any thought? (Also posting this on WT:Neuro.) CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Allocortex
 * Paleocortex
 * Archicortex
 * Periallocortex - does not exist, is mentioned frequently
 * Proisocortex
 * Neocortex & Isocortex
 * Sorry CFCF, I don't know anything about this. The articles are no help either, full of jargon and with not much context.Paleocortex and Archicortex seem to be types of Allocortex. That article could be expanded and written in plain English, which might help clarify the situation, and given the two articles exist as jargon-filled stubs it might be more comprehensible if they were merged into Allocortex. Unfortunately I don't know too much about this situation, perhaps the Neuroscience project may be able to help? --LT910001 (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, I guess I'll have to do some reading up. Most likely the books I have will explain properly. I'll just have to wait till I'm home again, tomorrow evening. CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 10:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi CFCF - have proposed merges for paleocortex and archicortex into allocortex - periallocortex also belongs there. And the others can be easily sorted - have also proposed change from Paralimbic cortex to Mesocortex and the linked Isocortex redirects to Neocortex.....there is room for a reference to true isocortex which belongs with proisocortex both as subtopics of Neocortex. Iztwoz (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, I missed your comment here, but that sounds perfect. Great to get some info from someone familiar in the subject. As always it is on my todo-list but don't hesitate to go ahead with any merges you know are correct as there is a lot more on my list before I get to fixing these articles. Thanks, CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese anatomy project
Hello! I neglected to share something here and want to do so now.


 * WikiProject Fisiologia & Anatomia 1

This is a class project to develop anatomy articles on Portuguese Wikipedia. It is hosted here on English Wikipedia the professor wanted to use the Wikipedia Education Program interface to register students and track their work. Since Portuguese Wikipedia does not have the education extension software installed on it, the professor wanted to try to host this on English Wikipedia.

There must be a lot of problems and confusion with this because even in English the education software is not easy to manage, and across languages, there can only be more problems communicating and tracking work. Still, the professor had several classes in the past work on Portuguese articles so upon making a thoughtful request for the userrights to make a course page here, I granted the userright.

I am not sure what anyone here can do with the information but I am sharing this as evidence of interest in anatomy projects in other languages which seek support of a kind from English Wikipedia.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  12:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Use in book
It is some assurance of quality that other authors decide to lift our work.

See : "e-Study Guide for: Introductory Biomechanics by C. Ross Ethier, ISBN 9780521841122 ", which directly lifts the leads from articles including cruciate ligament and epitenon (before epitenon was merged).

I first identified this when checking where the text from Epitenon arose from. In this case, the text lifted by the book is the work of others, rather than myself, as the book was published in 2012. Well done =D! --LT910001 (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * LT910001, sources commonly plagiarize Wikipedia, which I wouldn't necessarily classify as a good thing. Sure, it can feel good to know that Wikipedia has that much power, but that aspect has also often proven itself detrimental, such as if the Wikipedia article is wrong or if the source is cited in a Wikipedia article. It's irritating to see a book cited to support Wikipedia text on a matter when that book is citing Wikipedia text on the matter, as in this case...where Wikipedia came up with the text first and then, because a WP:Secondary source copied the text, the Wikipedia text could be sourced; the problem with that, other than the WP:Copyright violation, is that it's essentially Wikipedia sourcing itself. This type of thing has been a big problem for WP:Med. If the source credits Wikipedia, then that's a little bit better. But if the source is simply copying Wikipedia without crediting it? Pure problematic. Flyer22 (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Flyer22, this particular series of books is of generally poor quality, receives poor reviews and is mainly built out of Wikipedia material. Though attributed I don't think the publications add anything useful and are only a scheme. That said I don't think we need to rule out the possibility that higher quality sources will be using or referring to our material in the future. CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC article of relevance
Hello. A user recently created the Draft article: Draft:Mesenteric Organ. It's a very technical article which probably needs specialist attention. We at AfC would appreciate members of this Wikiproject's help in reviewing it, and possibly preparing it for the mainspace. --LukeSurlt c 22:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Judging by the name I would first have supposed the article to be a list of organs that are enclosed by the mesentery, but the article seems to focus more on the mesentery itself. As for my understanding using the term mesentery organ for mesentery is superfluous, on par with tautologies such as heart organ for heart or colon intestine for colon.
 * I think what the author is trying to point out with the new article that newer research has pointed to the mesentery being a continuous structure, and that the term mesentery organ can be used, but I think all this could be fitted under the original mesentery article, and that the terms:
 * mesentery organ
 * mesenteric organ


 * could redirect to mesentery.
 * While
 * mesenteric organs
 * mesentery organs
 * should redirect to intraperitoneal ( Currently a redirect ), possibly with mention that the mesentery is not the same as the peritoneum.


 * Anyone else? CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 13:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think the additions in themselves are of rather high quality, at least at first glance. CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 13:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Realised we are missing a few list articles:
 * Intraperiotoneal organ (s)
 * Retroperitoneal organ (s)


 * and that
 * Intraperitoneal
 * Retroperitoneal


 * are not pointing to the right things.
 * CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also missing:
 * Intraperitoneal space


 * CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

A good point,. I think that retroperitoneal organs and similar redirects should all point to retroperitoneal space, and intraperitoneal organs et al. should point to peritoneum. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a different reviewer accepted the article to mainspace yesterday, it can now be found at Mesenteric Organ. I've done a few cleanup edits, but the main content is out of my league. Cheers, --LukeSurlt c 15:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, all I'm missing is a list of intraperitoneal organs on the peritoneum article, but adding that wouldn't be very time-consuming. CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 08:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've created those redirects. Should the two red mesenteric ones redirect to mesentery? --LT910001 (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, done. CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Lungs
I noticed that Left lung redirects to Lung, while Right lung redirects to Human lung. Should these redirects point to the same article? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yes, they should. Thanks for picking this up, --LT910001 (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Placement of "Anatomical Terminology" template
has opened a thread at WP:MED about the placement of the "Anatomical terminology" template in articles. That discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. --LT910001 (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not originally posting here as well. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

vertebral headaches - what to merge
note we have Human vertebral column as a parent, with Spinal curvature and Lordosis, Lumbar hyperlordosis, scoliosis, kyphosis...some rationalization is recommended....also spinal vertebrae and the C,T,L,S subpages....comments needed so we can get consensus as what should go where....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, please note also we have the active WP:ANATOMY where anatomy-related content can be posted. --LT910001 (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * bit hard from a mobile as am out and about at present. Feel free to do so. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry if that was a little abrupt. To keep this project alive I think it's worthwhile having discussions here where possible, and at WT:MED only when necessary.--LT910001 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Anatomy At Wikimania 2014
Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adikhajuria (talk • contribs) 16:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone interested in taking on making a leaflet? If not I will try to find time to do it. I will be attending and think it would be great to have a leaflet. -- CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

See WPMED
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. I wish this project well in the future. It will only succeed if users assume good faith and work collaboratively with each other. --LT910001 (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh.. I feel very sad to hear that. But, anyway, I respect your thought. Take enough break for your mind peace, and if peace coming, pls back. You did many good things to projects and you will. --Was a bee (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Cross-language expansion
I'd like to thank some users for recently adding some inter-wiki links from some German Anatomy articles (cf. Thyroid, Ossicles). These could help us expand existing anatomy articles. Surfing the interwikis may produce a variety of very interesting and relevant content that can help us expand further. I'm posting this because it's not something that other users may be aware of. If you can speak a second language and have a look for additional articles we can use to improve here, or could translate these articles, it'd be very helpful to WP. One place in particular to look is the 'good article' and 'featured article' pages of the corresponding wikis.

To add a language link, use: 'Expand German' can be replaced with the language of the WP at hand.

--LT910001 (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I think these are useful on the talk pages of our articles. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Slightly late response, but I'm looking into more of these. The ones I added previously were from FAs on the German Wikipedia, but there is content of value out there on the French, Spanish and Russian Wikipedias as well that would be great for quick translations. I'll keep tagging the talk-pages with these when I find them. :) -- CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 10:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bimanual Coordination
Dear anatomy experts: This old Af submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is there material here that could be used to improve the Motor coordination article, as has been suggested? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there might be something worth saving here, but you'd be better of over at WT:Neuro. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 09:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Image
This image was used in pylorus, however per comments on the talk page it is indeed misleading. The part labelled "pyloric part" should include the antrum and canal, rather than these being considered separate. The part labelled 'antrum' here should in fact be the canal. How to correct this? --LT910001 (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How about the spanish version? It seems to have the correct labels, but the question is whether it looks good or I should try to make on without the arrows inside the stomach? Just changing the names to English would take less than 5 minutes. -- CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 12:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * SVG file is editable with software like Inkscape. Spanish version is nice. Arrows are not bad. --Was a bee (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Doing this tomorrow . -- CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 10:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been very busy, but will do it as soon as I can. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 09:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Anatomy for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (lecture)  @ 10:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is great, and as there is so much to do, even for non-professionals I am very happy to prepare a response. Give it a few days and I can answer your questions. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 12:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Makes me wish I was a bit more active in this project that way I'd have something useful to contribute to the interview. Motivation, I may have found it. Zell Faze (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ping to, one of our most active editors. 129.94.102.201 (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been debating on whether or not I should go ahead and comment or let CFCF comment first. LT910001, do you plan to comment in the interview? Maybe I should email LT910001 about it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

These are my preliminary answers, if there is anything you guys don't agree with feel free to contact me–and yes do send something to LT as he's done so much for this project.

''Please add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign each answer. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them.''

'''What motivated you to join WikiProject Anatomy? Do you have a background in medicine or biology, or are you simply interested in the topic?'''
 * I found the image content on Wikipedia very useful when studying anatomy, and at the same time I realized there were PD sources out there that hadn't been used. I basically started uploading things from my local library which got me into writing, which got me hooked. (CFCF)-- CFCF  🍌 (email) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would often use Wiki as a broad overview to learn about different parts of the body. It was very frustrating, because many articles were written very technically. Anatomy is the study of the human body, and we all have one, so the knowledge should be accessible to lay users. In addition, articles in generally have not received much attention, and many are lacking sources or missing key information (such as information about diseases that affect the structure, common variations in the structure, and development). With some other users, I have set off to set this right. (LT)

Have you contributed to any of the project's four Featured or ten Good articles, and are these sort of articles generally easier or harder to promote than other subjects?
 * Yes, I wrote Cranial nerve. My personal experience is that when it comes to fact checking people are timid about reviewing anything related to medicine. I know it can be hard without prior knowledge of the subject, and there are only so many of us on Wikipedia that have that. One of the benefits in anatomy is that you can pretty much pick up any source from after 1950 and it's going to be decent, so fact-checking is simpler than in pure medical topics.-- CFCF  🍌 (email) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact there are now 11 or 12 (the article assessment table is often out of date). (LT)
 * Yes, I wrote 5-6 and helped write Cranial nerves. When I came to the project, there were 5 good articles. These were about neurological structures, or structures with social and cultural significance (Clitoris). Because there were no model articles which could demonstrate how what a purely anatomical structure would look like as a GA, I set out to create some as models, to show it could be done. We first had to get the structure right for articles, and that involved discussions at the manual of style for anatomy articles. I outlined this at the time in our first newsletter, which was sort of a manifesto about things we need to get the project going again. Since that newsletter, we've doubled the number of GA, B-class, and C-class articles, as a result of uploading new content, reassessment of articles, and swallowing up a batch of neuroanatomy articles. The articles I created were Foramen spinosum, Suspensory ligament of the duodenum, Parathyroid gland, Recurrent laryngeal nerve, Cervix, and the featured list Anatomical terms of motion. With any luck, there'll be many more to come. (LT)

Can you explain your scope: what sort of articles qualify to be tagged under this project and what kind of things you don't cover?
 * Anything related to physiological (that is to say healthy) human anatomy. At first you think this is a limited number of articles, then you realize all anatomical variations are included. For example all the accessory bones, muscles or other organs that aren't inherently pathological. [[Image:Sesamoid bones.png|thumb|right|300px|The hand normally has 8 [[carpal bone]]s, but may have a larger number of accessory ossicles or sesamoid bones. This image shows over 30 different bones.]]-- CFCF  🍌 (email) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is actually quite a troublesome question, and something we've put a lot of thought into recently. We cover articles relating to human anatomy. The rub here lies in whether we should have individual articles about every single substructure, or whether they should be represented as single articles. We did, at one time, have an article Root of spine of scapula. The problem here is that these articles are taken straight from Gray's Anatomy 1918 and are very unloved and untended. By rolling them into bigger articles (such as Spine of scapula or even Scapula), we can draw attention to articles, make editing easier, and perhaps re-expand when the articles are more fully fleshed out. (LT)

'''What is your most popular topic or article, measured by reader page views? Should it be a project aim to improve your highest visibility articles?'''
 * On our most popular list there are two main themes: the major organs are one, and sexual content is the other. In the project we aim to focus on improving content that is high visibility and high importance–which doesn't exclude sexual content per say. We just rather focus on Heart, Liver, Cervix than Low importance topics.-- CFCF  🍌 (email) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with CFCF. We have been working on the corpus of organ-related articles, which includes the articles Breast and Cervix. Sex-related articles in generally get a lot of attention, and I think it is the article about pure anatomy which need work. (LT)

'''What are the primary resources used for writing an anatomy article? Do you solely rely on medical experts or are more mainstream references also fine?'''
 * Without insulting all to many people I'll make use of the pun: "Anatomy is a dead science". Apart from smaller advancements–macroscopic anatomy hasn't really moved in the last 100-120 years. New naming conventions have come with the TA, but for the most part–what stood true in 1890 about large scale anatomy is true today. This means certain aspects of WP:MEDRS are very hard to follow: for example we don't bother looking for "reviews from the past 5 years" - because in the case there are any reviews at all they are often from 1970-80 at best. Any college level or more advanced text-book from the past 70 years should be a viable source for us. Anatomy is also very visual, which means we need to use images, and old images are fine: I recently had a featured image from 1909. As for resources that can be found online, I'm in the middle of compiling a list of free resources, and of course there are the ~4000 images I have (only half of which I've uploaded) which haven't found their appropriate article.-- CFCF  🍌 (email) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a view that anatomy is a 'dead' science, however the advent of small cameras and high-quality imaging has completely revolutionized the field. Many doctors and surgeons are super-specialising, and there are an increasing number of very particular resources, such as books entirely about small anatomical structures. Locating these resources is very useful, and often the most useful resources come out in the last 10-15 years. These resources aggregate historical opinions of anatomists with recent epidemiological studies, such as of anatomical variation. Something that is very difficult in editing anatomical articles is understanding that a lot of anatomy teaching derives from a very small group of original authors such as Henry Gray that are quoted and requoted in literature and other textbooks until the opinions and experiences of those authors have become fact. For users interested in contributing, books, textbooks and atlases are very useful, because they are so information dense. (LT)

'''How close are your links with WikiProject Medicine, a related project? Do many members participate in both WikiProjects?'''
 * I'd have a hard time coming up with anyone involved in this project who isn't also a member of that project–which is unfortunate as we would hope to attract more general Wikipedians as well. On the other hand we have the benefit of being able to ask for help whenever we have a larger project, as recently on Heart.-- CFCF  🍌 (email) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are indeed a number of users who cover both projects, however there are also a number of members who edit purely anatomy-related articles. (LT)

'''What is the reason you exclusively cover human anatomy and not the body parts of other animals? No project seems to be looking after articles such as Thorax.'''
 * We've more or less formed as a group of editors with human anatomical expertise, so knowledge of animal or comparative anatomy is limited. We do strive to have a section on other animals in every article, and for FA or GA it is pretty much required in order to be sufficient in scope. Previously this has been the field of WP:VETMED & WP:Organismal biomechanics. That we hadn't tagged Thorax is more of an oversight than anything else. With over 9000 articles we occasionally miss even high-importance ones such as thorax, or until recently Limbic system.-- CFCF  🍌 (email) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a few reasons. It is easier to draw a bright line that delineates what relates to human anatomy and what doesn't. "Animal" anatomy could be very broad and we have the good fortune of not (unlike the related project WP:MED) being constantly embroiled in discussions about what relates to our scope. Other reasons for focusing on human anatomy include our strong crossover membership with WP:MED, the existence of a number of other animal-related projects such as WP:Animals and WP:Mammals, and the interests of our members. (LT)

How can a new member help today?
 * Drop in to our Wikiproject, pick some articles, and improve them! We're always looking for people to collaborate with in the project and am happy to collaborate with whatever interests users who drop by. Something we are in great need of is sourcing articles, and users who can write in plain English. There is so much to improve and always room for more hands. Something very helpful a new member could do is go to their local library, find an anatomy book, and start using it to source. (LT)


 * This completely depends on prior knowledge. Someone who is completely new to anatomy could appropriate text from the CC-BY Openstax Anatomy & Physiology book–something which requires little previous knowledge and could be very educational. If you're into working on images there is so much out there that I could point to, and if you want to write all you need to do is pick up an anatomical textbook and write.-- CFCF  🍌 (email) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Anything else you'd like to add?
 * Superficially, anatomy is dry and dull and a dead science. However if you go a little deeper, it's a lively and very active field, with new publications coming out all the time. Anatomy is a fascinating look into how our bodies are structured and develop and I hope more users decide to contribute. (LT)

-- -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * CFCF, your answers are fine for the most. I state "for the most" because, as is surely no surprise to you, I somewhat disagree with your take on the sexual aspects. Also, why do you think it's unfortunate that the majority of editors who are WP:Anatomy editors are also WP:Med editors, or are involved with WP:Med in some way? I'll answer the signpost next. Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think I disagree with you as much as you think, and I tried to make it out that sexual content isn't unimportant per say–its just that certain aspects are to put it mildly: more popular than they deserve. As for why I think the overlap with WP:MED is slightly unfortunate is because I think we could attract more general Wikipedians as well. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 17:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. I did note "somewhat disagree"; It'll be clear why I somewhat disagree in the signpost. And I figured "could attract more general Wikipedians as well" is what you meant regarding WP:Anatomy/WP:Med editors. Care clarifying that in the signpost? I think some WP:Anatomy members on the Participants list aren't involved with WP:Med, though. Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, any other editors wishing to be included must post their answers within the next 12 hours, when I'll be getting this article ready for publication.  Rcsprinter123    (collogue)  @ 19:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Morning, this is LT910001 signing in from an IP address, I'll sign in using my account later today to verify this. Thanks for the email, Flyer22, I've been taking some time off Wiki recently so I haven't been following affairs that strongly. That said, getting on the signpost is something I've been very enthusiastic about and has definitely been on my to-do list. Am I still able to comment? I'll leave some answers below. 129.94.102.201 (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. (LT)
 * You're welcome, LT910001. Thanks for weighing in above. I overlooked where Rcsprinter stated above that we can answer the signpost in this section; that's why I instead added my answers directly to the signpost. Excuse me on that, Rcsprinter. Flyer22 (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Flyer22. I've copied my responses there, too. 129.94.102.201 (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can confirm this IP editor is me. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ping, also take a look at Heart if you want to, it had a recent expansion and is undergoing cleanup. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 06:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * CFCF, regarding this change you made to your signpost replies above, you might want to make those changes directly to the signpost...unless Rcsprinter takes care of that for you. And thanks for adding the aforementioned "could attract more general Wikipedians as well" clarification to the signpost. Flyer22 (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have taken care of copying the small changes.  Rcsprinter123    (talk)  @ 07:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I added the other part. Flyer22 (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I had already put that directly into the article.  Rcsprinter123    (push)  @ 08:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to all participants. This will be published within the next couple of days. And BTW, the interview did not need to be posted on this page, only at the page linked to.  Rcsprinter123    (talk)  @ 07:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggested variable for categorization
I think we could make use of Variations under the rater tool, for any feature that is missing in the majority of the population; such as the psoas minor, accessory soleus, etc. etc. Thoughts? Does anyone know how to implement this? I know fixed the functionality of the tool, and I never really got the hang of changing the settings properly. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 08:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this has gone by the wayside. We could definitely have a check box to denote what's a variation, and articles can be automatically added to a certain category. I wouldn't support adding it to the list of options (muscle, nerve, ...) though, if that's what you mean, as most variations can already be fit into a category there. I'll get to it before Christmas! --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Human gonad move discussion
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Human gonad. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Flyer22, a very reasonable move. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Merging of Heart & Human heart
So, this has been a peeve of mine for a while now, and I've finally decided to do something about it. Instead of simply complain and get someone else to do the merge I've written up a massive expansion, primarily sourced from a quality CC-BY source. After having it almost eclipse other work I've been doing it is at a level where I can show it to others who might be interested in helping out. Basically the article is at around 160kb, and if it wasn't for the reliance on a single source I would push for it to reach FA within short.

What needs doing is the following:
 * Wikilinking the content on Physiology onwards.
 * Fixing image #s as has been done in the structure section
 * Merging the content from the 3 sources on Embryology (the first section is all from CNX and refernced, if merged please only merge with other referenced content.
 * Copyediting for language which speaks directly to the reader (same as the points about, should be done on the Structure section).

So, if anyone is interested the article can be found here: User:CFCF/draft/Heart

-- -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 16:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks greatly improved! --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

GA goal -- 20 GAs
We've now more than exceeded our original goal of doubling the number of GAs (... to 10), so I've updated the goal to 20 GAs. I know it's a small goal, but I'd prefer to set small and achievable goals rather than a huge and unrealistic number. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup listing
Thanks to we now have a cleanup listing here:, which I've put on the project page here. This is a useful listing of all the articles in our scope tagged for cleanup, categorised by the relevant cleanup tag. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Opinions are needed on the above linked discussion. A WP:Permalink regarding it is here. It concerns this WikiProject because I revert WP:Vandalism and other unconstructive edits at medical and anatomy articles. Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see your rollback rights returned. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Last call for editing the Pulse
So, in case any of you missed it over at WT:MED, this is a last call for edits and additions to the WP:PULSE, WP:MED's newsletter. I've added some content and anatomy and physiology, but feel free to add more. Planning on sending this live on Wednesday!

Oh, and this is the link to the draft!
 * WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/August 2014 -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 14:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Human anatomy
This thread is being disrupted by a user who keeps closing it. To anyone who has been referred to the thread, it is, despite appearances, still very much active. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC) See below for discussion

Given this project appears to cover human anatomy only, might it not be less confusing to rename it "WikiProject Human Anatomy"? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Disambiguation should only be used when needed, which is what we follow when it comes to articles on Wikipedia (WP:Disambiguation). For example, if this project was named Wikipedia:WikiProject Human anatomy, then what would Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy cover if it were created? Only non-human animals? Both human and non-human animals? We only need one WikiProject devoted to anatomy, though WikiProject Physiology also exists. And like WP:MEDMOS shows, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy does cover non-human animals; it's rather that anatomy articles that are primarily or only about non-human animals, such as the Pregnancy (mammals) article, are not tagged with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy banner as being within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy scope, while the Pregnancy article is. I questioned this approach, but it's the approach that LT910001 (Tom) and CFCF want to follow, and I didn't object much to it, and so we follow it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That sounds great, except that what you say is not true in practice either in the manner in which the project has been defined or in the manner project members police the project. For example, CFCF has added an uncontested section titled Scope to the project page, which asserts only that "This particular project supports all articles on human anatomy", thus implicitly excluding non-human animals. And as an example of how this policy is enforced in practice, I added the project to Fish anatomy whereupon LT910001 went out of his way to remove it with no explanation. It may be as you say, that LT910001 (Tom) and CFCF want to follow their eccentric dismissal of non-human anatomy, but I find it objectionable and suggest that they either open the project to include the anatomy of animals, or rename it to accurately reflect what in practice it actually is. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I hadn't seen this - usually the bulk of research has been on human structures, so best way is to base articles on that and then have sections for other life forms (e.g. Cervix bit of cervix). I'd say there needs to be some network/map of how things are covered. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you really saying? Is it your considered response that, for example, Fish anatomy should be deleted, and everything in the article should be added as minor appendages to articles on human anatomy? And what about the many fish anatomy sub-articles, such as Fish fin. Should that be deleted as well, and replaced by minor appendages to articles such as hand and feet? By extension, should Fish physiology be deleted, and merged to minor sections in articles on human physiology. More generally and for consistency, should all articles dealing with animals be deleted and replaced with minor asides in articles on humans? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm confused by you stating that "what you say is not true in practice either in the manner in which the project has been defined or in the manner project members police the project." Above, I stated that "it's rather that anatomy articles that are primarily or only about non-human animals, such as the Pregnancy (mammals) article, are not tagged with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy banner as being within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy scope, while the Pregnancy article is." And that is true, as also demonstrated by Casliber (Cas Liber)'s example above. We do include non-human animal content in the scope of this project, but not if the content is primarily or solely about non-human animals. Flyer22 (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, this project limiting its scope in the way that it does doesn't mean that it never works on articles that are primarily or solely about non-human animal anatomy. Flyer22 (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * But that is exactly what it does do. I have given you an example. Can you give me a counter example? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am a part of this project and I don't exclusively focus on human anatomy; the Pregnancy (mammals) article is one example. Flyer22 (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, editors from this project have been working on the Anatomy article, which is not primarily about humans. Flyer22 (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The Anatomy article is also tagged with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy banner (clearly an exception). Flyer22 (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I accept you are confused. Pregnancy (mammals) is not tagged with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy banner. So that has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. Sure Anatomy is tagged, but the salient point is that that article is primarily about humans, not other animals.--Epipelagic (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Epipelagic, I consider that you are the confused one on this matter. You basically stated that this project never works on articles that are primarily or solely about non-human animal anatomy. I stated that you are wrong, and pointed to two examples -- the Pregnancy (mammals) article where I did a bit of tweaking and the Anatomy article. The Anatomy article is not primarily about humans; this is why we have the Human anatomy (Human body) article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * And per my initial comment to you above, the Pregnancy (mammals) article most certainly has to do with what we are discussing. Flyer22 (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What precisely are you confused about? I gave you clear examples. To summarize, the project rejects articles that are primarily about animal anatomy. It only accepts articles that are primarily about human anatomy. So the project should be called "WikiProject Human Anatomy", and there is no current project that caters for articles that deal primarily with animal anatomy. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I was confused about your wording above; you stated, "what you say is not true in practice either in the manner in which the project has been defined or in the manner project members police the project." I essentially relayed that what I stated above does hold up in practice, since I was speaking of the cases in which we do focus on non-human animal anatomy and the cases in which we don't. Flyer22 (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * So then give some plausible cases of where this project caters to anatomy in animals and animals in general, and not just primarily to human anatomy. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I already did -- the Anatomy article. You should take a closer look at it, considering that it is nowhere close to being primarily about humans. Flyer22 (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, you have a point there. It's an anomaly isn't it? LT910001 couldn't delete the project banner because the article is eponymous for the project itself. That just reinforces my point. To be consistent, LT910001 will have to rewrite the article to exclude these unseemly references to non-human animals. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Why did you alter my comment here? I've restored it. Flyer22 (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies... I have no idea how I did that. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The scope of the project is well established among its members. Noone is asking WikiProject Medicine to change names to WikiProject Human Medicine. , I suggest you tag articles under WP:VETMED, and stop wasting time debating project names. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 07:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You are joking aren't you? Are you seriously suggesting articles such as fish anatomy, fish physiology and fish fin (plus many others) should all be tagged as belonging to WikiProject Veterinary medicine? If so, then you are the one who is "wasting time". Do you seriously believe anatomy and physiology are are wholly the preserve of the medical establishment? --Epipelagic (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Articles don't belong to WikiProjects, they fall under their scope. Many aspects of the pregnancy article are in no way related to anatomy, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tagged. WikiProject Veterinary medicine has previously tagged articles relating to animal anatomy, and I suggest you take that up with them if you're unhappy with it. Now, please stop debating nonsense and get back to improving content. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 07:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I cannot imagine what your mention of the pregnancy article has to do with anything in this thread. And WikiProject Veterinary medicine has at most an indifferent tangential relation to articles such as fish anatomy, fish physiology and fish fin. Articles like this do not, as you seem to think, generally fall under your medical umbrella, whether they "belong" to it or whether they "fall under its scope". There is (much) more to science than just medicine. Please address the central point and stop telling me to "get back to improving content". That is not an argument. My concern here is how to tag animal articles on anatomy and physiology with appropriate projects, and your obfuscation does not help the process. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Archived as per WP:SNOW. Established consensus will not change without the explicit aim of improving the project, and as per WP:Disambiguation there are absolutely no grounds for a name change, as was stated repeatedly. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 17:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * CFCF please stop repeatedly and inappropriately hatting the above discussion. You aren't interested in the discussion... I've got that. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion is not killed, it has been archived, your move request is visible at the bottom. See WP:CLOSE. The current discussion is ongoing below. I did not close that, as you may/may not have seen. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 08:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then stop repeatedly "archiving" an active discussion. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The active discussion is below. The same topics should not be discussed both here and below as is occuring. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 09:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion is still active and a number of projects have been notified about it. CFCF keeps disruptively closing the discussion, presumably to try and deflect attention away from it. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Since this thread is languishing, may I restate the issue again. It is a fact that all sorts of animals and even plants, apart from humans, have an anatomy. WikiProject Anatomy seems to have been taken over by editors confined to a strange and narrow medical perspective where anatomical issues related specifically to animals are dismissed as tangential or irrelevant. Articles such as fish anatomy are not accepted as being within the scope of the project. If the project is not open to rational reform, and does not want to include within its scope articles about animal anatomy, then it is time for the project to be renamed as WikiProject Human Anatomy. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , how about we slow this discussion down a little bit. Your main concern is that there is no project under which to categorise articles relating to plant and animal anatomy? How many such articles are there? Is there a reason why the respective projects documented below can't already take these? How will accepting these articles benefit the encyclopedia in terms of editing? (the same amount of editors will be here) Where do we draw the line for anatomical articles (animals? plants? cellular anatomy?) Are there many users who share your concerns? Are these users actively editing anatomy articles and waiting for an appropriately-named project to join in order to commence editing? Let's talk about this a little first, instead of expecting a longstanding project to vacate our premises within a day owing to the concerns of a single user regarding nomenclature. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As an afterthought, it seems that you have an issue with the scope of this project, which is ultimately just a meeting place for people with similar interests. If it's with my editing style, feel free to contact me on my talk page. If it's not, please stop making reference to my particular edits and inferring this I will or won't do ("LT910001 couldn't delete the project banner ", "LT910001 will have to rewrite the article", "LT910001 went out of his way", "LT910001 (Tom) and CFCF want to follow their eccentric dismissal of non-human anatomy"). Let's discuss the ideas, not the people. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * But what ideas have you produced that are relevant to the issue? Neither you nor CFCF have offered a single reason for retaining the misleading project name. Instead you misrepresent the issue by claiming that I am "expecting a longstanding project to vacate our premises within a day". What has that idea of yours to do with the matters I am raising? And your idea below that I "feel persecuted" and your announcement that you are feeling sorry about it is not helpful either. I'll restate the issue once again. I am suggesting that there are two options. The first option is to retain the current project title and open the project to what the title says the project is about, anatomy (both human and non-human). The second option is to retain the current scope of the project, and rename the project to reflect that scope, human anatomy. You and CFCF seem to prefer a third option, which is to retain the current title and the current scope. The difficulty with the third option is that the title and the scope don't match. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As a point of information, the awkward scope of this project was defined several years ago by a fly-by editor who was not a participant in the project. There was no discussion of the change on the talk page. This happened several years ago when the project was not very active. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:Edit conflict with this edit: You're speaking of an edit by WhatamIdoing from four years ago. Perhaps, since she is a very active Wikipedian, and was involved in the discussion for outlining the Anatomy section of WP:MEDMOS, she has something to state regarding your points. Flyer22 (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If memory serves, the relevant discussions happened at WT:MED, not here, and involved some of the many dual-project participants. I believe that the main line of arguments was that they didn't want to, so they hoped that the (still) semi-active (at best) VETMED project would take care of these articles.  This likely would have been around the time that we discussed converting this project into a task force for WPMED.
 * The point behind the edit was to increase the likelihood that non-participant taggers would only tag pages that the group actually wanted to support. There's a small group of editors that tag thousands of pages for WikiProjects, and they rely on the scope descriptions provided by projects.  (Supporting them, and saving ourselves some hassle, is why WP:MEDA has such a detailed list.)
 * I have no strong opinions about whether this project should or shouldn't cover non-human anatomy; for that matter, I have no strong opinions over whether this project should or shouldn't cover articles like Scalpel or Body snatching or Engraving, all of which have a significant connection to the main subject here. I'll even defend your right to choose completely random articles to support, if that's what you'd like.  But you need to decide what the group wants, not what a couple of individuals want.
 * To help you make the decision, consider these two questions:
 * If an article (e.g., Fish anatomy) is sent to AFD, do you want a bot to alert you to this, or not?
 * If someone's got a question or found a problem, do you want them to ask you about it, or to ask some other group? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Anatomy has a |field parameter, where one of the choices is "animal". Using the animal parameter places articles in Category:Anatomy articles about animal anatomy. I've tagged a couple articles on animal anatomy using the parameter in the past. If articles on animal anatomy are out of the scope of this project, the "animal" parameter option really should be disabled/deleted; it's continued presence implies that animal anatomy is within the scope of the project. I have no strong opinion on what the scope of Anatomy should be, but I strongly disagree with the suggestion that (in general), animal anatomy is more appropriate to the scope of WikiProject Veterinary Medicine. Many anatomical features are found in animals that veterinarians never come across; e.g. Stylophthalmine trait is an anatomical feature in some deep-sea fishes, and I doubt that any veterinarian has ever handled or cared for a fish with this feature. Plantdrew (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move
Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy → WikiProject Human Anatomy – For reasons clearly set out in the above thread. As it stands, this project covers only articles mainly devoted to human anatomy. It does not cover articles specifically about non-human animal anatomy or plant anatomy. Epipelagic (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Epipelagic, I'm sorry you feel persecuted and can assure you I haven't gone "out of my way" to do anything. A WikiProject has a scope determined by its members; we choose to work on human anatomy articles. There is WP:ANIMALS, WP:BIOLOGY, WP:MAMMALS, WP:Organismal Biomechanics, WikiProject Animals, WikiProject Insects, WikiProject Cephalopods, WikiProject Gastropods, WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Fishes, WikiProject Insects, WikiProject Mammals, WikiProject Oligochaetes and I'm sure many more. I, and I'm sure the members here would be more than willing to change the scope to 'primarily human anatomy'. Lastly, I'd point out that regardless of whether our title, we'll still have the same number of editors and the same amount of activity... this discussion is not helping us improve the encyclopedia. Kind regards, --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have left a message pointing to this discussion on the talk pages of some of the projects you mentioned. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Like I stated above (my "01:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)" post), "disambiguation should only be used when needed, which is what we follow when it comes to articles on Wikipedia (WP:Disambiguation). For example, if this project was named Wikipedia:WikiProject Human anatomy, then what would Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy cover if it were created? Only non-human animals? Both human and non-human animals? We only need one WikiProject devoted to anatomy, though WikiProject Physiology also exists. And like WP:MEDMOS shows, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy does cover non-human animals; it's rather that anatomy articles that are primarily or only about non-human animals, such as the Pregnancy (mammals) article, are not tagged with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy banner as being within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy scope, while the Pregnancy article is." Flyer22 (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Also if this WikiProject were moved to Epipelagic's proposal, the word anatomy should be de-capitalized. Flyer22 (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment while Wikiprojects can choose their own names, I think the projects' names should reflect their actual scope. disambiguation should only be used when needed only applies to article names. This clearly isn't an article. If it doesn't cover the topic of anatomy, then it shouldn't be called the anatomy wikiproject. If the scope is human anatomy, it should be so called. There's no such thing as primary topic outside of articlespace. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it might be better to reorganize the project. WP:ANATOMY and TF Human anatomy. The project would be widened to cover all anatomy, with a specific task force for human anatomy. Many anatomical subjects can be dealt with with single articles that have a section specifically for humans, a generalized introduction, and sections for various animals that vary from the general form. (The general form would be covered as the "main" topic, and human variation on the mian as a subtopic), so the Wikiproject can also be so treated) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * IP, in my opinion, "disambiguation should only be used when needed" should apply to any page on Wikipedia. And I clearly mentioned WP:Disambiguation with regard to articles; meaning that if we do so with articles, I don't see why we should not do so with WikiProjects. And once again, WikiProject Anatomy does cover non-human animals, just not primarily. WikiProject Medicine (WP:Med) takes the same approach. From our recent discussion (involving you and me) about gonads, I know that you have an anti-anthropocentrism point of view, but the world is anthropocentric for the most part (predominantly), and I think that's where LT910001 (Tom) and CFCF are coming from on this matter. That's clearly part of where I was coming from in my discussion with you on the gonads topic. I noted in my "01:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)" post above that I did question the idea that WikiProject Anatomy should exclude articles that are primarily or solely about non-human animals (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 6), but this project focuses significantly more so on articles concerning human anatomy than on articles concerning non-human anatomy. Flyer22 (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose – As per reasons above. There is no need, there is no improvement. The scope is not arbitrary, but well defined. We have no need to disambiguate. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 07:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per opposers. If there was a viable project for non-human anatomy the case might be different, but there isn't, not is there likely to be on such a broad topic I would imagine. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: We should not be dictating to other volunteers how they spend their time. If the current members of WPANAT want to mainly concentrate on human anatomy, then they should be allowed to - after all that's what most of the sources deal with. It costs nothing to leave the project titled "WikiProject Anatomy" and that may attract other editors who might wish to concentrate on articles within the broader scope. It seems crazy to put ourselves in the position where sometime in the future a different group of project members might be having to consider a name change in the opposite direction. --RexxS (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support First, to the editor who closed this discussion, I think it is extremely premature - It has been closed 24hrs after it started!  Give people around the globe the chance to think and enter into the discussion.


 * Second, I think some editors are missing the point. This is about the readers, not editors preferences.  We should all be working to make this an easily accessible resource.  This means accuracy in the article titles.  Wikipedia has adopted the policy that humans should be termed 'humans' and non-humans as 'animals'.  I disagree with this artificial distinction, however, if we have such a policy then any article termed "anatomy" or "physiology" without defining humans or animals should be a broad review of both classes. Simply having one word and assuming this relates only to humans is misleading to the reader.  The article Pregnancy is a good example of why this causes a problem.  It states as a definition "Pregnancy is the development of one or more offspring, known as an embryo or fetus, in a woman's uterus."  This is incorrect! I think a pregnant live-bearing fish would be surprised to find out it is a woman!.  We need to make things easier for the reader.  This means if the project is to refuse articles on non-human animals, it should be renamed to "WikiProject Human Anatomy" or change its scope.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, . To be clear, this discussion isn't about whether these articles should be on Wikipedia - I think we all agree on that - but whether this WP:Wikiproject, with the number of active users you could count on your fingers, should be expanded to include them in its scope. The majority of currently active members edit human anatomy-related articles regardless of whether they are or aren't in our scope. The only way that this will impact readers is by adding a note on the WP:Talk page of an article, which isn't visited by most readers anyway -- the articles themselves will remain the same and receive the same amount of attention as always. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * [ WP:Edit conflict ]: DrChrissy, as pointed about above, this discussion is about a WP:WikiProject title, not a WP:Article title. If it were a WP:Article title matter, one could argue that disambiguation is not at all valid (unless arguing from a WP:Ignore all rules point of view) because there should first be a general article before proposing that disambiguation is needed. Also, there is no "Wikipedia policy that humans should be termed 'humans' and non-humans as 'animals'"; Wikipedia, especially as far as WP:Med and WP:Anatomy articles go, often uses the wording "other animals" or "non-human animals" to refer to non-human animals. This is because these areas of Wikipedia acknowledge that humans are also animals. See WP:MEDMOS, which states "Other animals." Flyer22 (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I have to disagree with you here. I mainly edit articles on animals or animal behaviour.  I am constantly running into this policy of differentiation between humans and non-human animals (I agree different terms might be used, but the arguement is that there is perceived by some to be a clear distinction which is often vermently defended.)
 * If the handful of editors on the project page wish to discuss only human anatomy, why not make it clear to all WP users by changing the title? I simply do not understand the resistance to this suggestion for the sake of a few key-strokes.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * DrChrissy (my last time pinging you to this discussion via WP:Echo because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), I am fine with you disagreeing with me, but I assure you that there is no such "humans should be termed 'humans' and non-humans as 'animals'" Wikipedia policy. And as for "If the handful of editors on the project page wish to discuss only human anatomy," I already pointed out above that we discuss non-human animal anatomy as well. It's simply that this WikiProject is significantly more focused on humans than on non-human animals and plant life. Flyer22 (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the Pregnancy article's definition is not incorrect since the scope of that article is humans as opposed to non-human animals, which is clear by the WP:Hatnote pointing readers to the article about pregnancy in non-human animals. And besides, the term pregnancy does not refer to fish as much as it does to humans. Flyer22 (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but I have to disagree again. If the Pregnancy article is only about pregnancy in humans this should be made clear to the reader in the title. If is possible (and it clearly is in this case) readers should not have to click on a page and then have to decipher what the subject is about.  This is an anthropocentric attitude. The definition (first line) should follow the title, but it clearly does not.  Surely the term "pregnancy" applies equally to all animals that go through this process, I simply do not understand the argument "the term pregnancy does not refer to fish as much as it does to humans."__DrChrissy (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you DrChrissy. Disambiguating everything is very confusing for readers, far more than it is to read a hat-note to be directed properly. Most readers will be looking for the human article, and yes, we are very well aware that this is anthropocentric, but so is society. There is no WP:Anthropocentric policy, and we are doing our readers no favors by excessively disambiguating everything as human, when most of them will be looking for the human topic.-- CFCF  🍌 (email) 12:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * And I disagree, DrChrissy, per Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 8 and per my "07:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)" response above to an IP. I am certain that the vast majority of our readers who type in "pregnancy" will be looking for the topic on human pregnancy, not pregnancy among other animals. And we should be thinking about what is best for our readers when we title articles. Making them click on an extra article just to get to the topic about humans is not how Wikipedia should work. And as for "the term pregnancy does not refer to fish as much as it does to humans," it's easy to see by simply Googling pregnancy, whether on regular Google, on Google Books or on Google Scholar, that the vast majority of the time that the term pregnancy is used...it is referring to human pregnancy. See WP:Primary topic. Flyer22 (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, pregnant fish are not a helpful example for the "all animals" side, since "Over 97% of all known fish are oviparous" according to fish, and therefore can't properly be ever said to be pregnant, imo (unless this is a common technical usage). No form of the word is used in fish. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The word "pregnant" is widely used (not necessarily technically) when referring to live-bearing species of fish. Just because they are only 3% of the fish population does not mean that they don't become pregnant.  This is an oversight in the Fish article and should not be used to defend a stand-point on other articles. The vast majority of birds fly, but the article Bird mentions flightlessness.  I chose the fish as an example to encourage discussion using a group of animals that had not yet been discussed.  If I was a reader and I was trying to find out information about my dog which had just become pregnant, I would search "pregnancy" before "pregnancy (mammals)".  After all, humans are mammals too.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you would extremely quickly be forwarded to the article you were looking for. The fact remains that more people will be looking for information pertaining to pregnancy in humans than in animals. That people will be looking for pregnancy in animals is not at dispute here. It is on the other hand natural to assume that more individuals will be guided correctly by having the main article refer to pregnancy in humans. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 15:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * More relevantly, 99% of the readers will never see the name of this group of editors (it should never appear in an article), and if they do, the more general name will make perfect sense to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To get back to basics, I feel strongly that the encyclopedia in general should strive to reflect the logical underlying structure of human knowledge, rather than reflecting prevailing human prejudices, no matter how "convenient" those prejudices may be when a reader is searching for a topic. Thus, I believe for articles and categories, a non-anthropomorphic approach is preferable. People may disagree, but from my perspective, medicine (including human anatomy, physiology, pathology, etc), is fundamentally an aspect of human biology and human behavior. Human anatomy is an aspect of animal anatomy. Human behavior is an aspect of animal behavior. Humans are a species of animal.

Now, the exact name a WikiProject uses is not really a very crucial decision, as this question hardly impacts most readers, as opposed to editors; however, when a WikiProject name reflects a prevailing prejudice in the way knowledge is presented in this encyclopedia, then the chosen name is perhaps a non-trivial thing.

A prejudice which currently still runs through the encyclopedia seems to imply that humankind is the "crown of creation" and that the rest of life on earth is a kind of afterthought which is best summed up in a few side remarks. This prejudice might I think best be tackled directly by approaching WikiProject Medicine for a prolonged discussion. Invertzoo (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no inherent logical division, and any division that is made is arbitrary. I find it just as logical that articles should be mainly focused on humans, as the readers of this encyclopedia are human. We should in the first hand be looking out for what our readers need and are looking for, without looking for inherent logic. Until we are presented with undeniable evidence that our readers are dogs, the anthropocentric approach is the only viable one, and must be chosen above a canocentric or w/e approach.
 * Noone is questioning the viability, need or importance of animal content, but it should not be placed in front of and shun away human oriented content due to the notion of something being inherently bad in anthropocentricism. Keeping human articles as main articles does not imply humans to be at the pinnacle of anything, spare Wikipedia readership. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 15:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure whether you are deliberately misunderstanding or misrepresenting me. Dogs came into the discussion because I was talking about a human reader wanting to find out about pregnancy in their dog.  Currently, if a (human) reader went to Pregnancy they would get no information about dogs.  If they missed the hatnote, they might scan down a very lengthy page only to find there was no information on dogs or pregnancy in general.  I would find that extremely frustrating when it would be so simple to title the page Pregnancy (humans).__DrChrissy (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a fairly weak argument. The fact that the article concerns humans is stated in the hat-note, and in the first and second line. Your example would imply that only a disambiguation page would suffice, something which inconveniences both the reader looking for information about dogs, and about humans. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 15:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I second Invertzoo's statements. I'd think that people who know a lot more about anatomy than me would, of all people, know quite well that there's little in the anatomy and physiology of humans that is all that different in humans from other animals. It doesn't make sense for articles on very general topics to be exclusively about the phenomenon in humans. It's perhaps understandable for pneumonia, mentioned below, but for heart? While most people think of human hearts, they probably don't think only humans have hearts, or that other mammals' hearts are vastly different from ours! This extreme level of anthropocentrism in a general encyclopedia doesn't serve all our readers, isn't the most encyclopedic treatment, and isn't to be found elsewhere. Lung and Human lung follow a more sensible organisation for any such topics. That seems to be another issue, for another day, though. If you guys wish to have a project exclusively on human anatomy, excluding articles like fish anatomy, that's quite fine, but insisting on not moving after having been asked to doesn't serve any constructive end. &mdash;innotata 19:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Innotata, the Heart article does not exclusively cover humans. It clearly has a significant "Other animals" section. And up until August 28th of this year, there used to be a Heart article and a Human heart article. If the hearts of non-human animals were studied as extensively as human hearts are, then it's very likely that the non-human animal content would still have its own Wikipedia article. Another thing to take into consideration, as I've pointed out more than once regarding these charges of anthropocentrism pertaining to anatomy topics is that it's often that a body part is not as well studied in non-human animals as it is in humans. Therefore, it's often that the information about non-human animals is WP:Stub material, similar to the topic of cancer (well studied in humans; scarcely studied in non-human animals). And per WP:Spinout, an article should ideally only be split when needed. If that WP:Stub material can be adequately covered in the article that is predominantly about humans, it should be covered there unless, or until, it warrants a separate article. This is why WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, which I linked to above, has an Other animals field. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Our knowledge of other animals' anatomy is not that far behind, and I'd think you'd know that, considering for example how much work on hearts is done in pigs and mice. We could have articles that discuss lungs and hearts in full depth, that maybe talk about humans where humans are more studied, without relegating most diversity to a single subsection—and, crucially, this would do nothing stop us from having excellent articles on human anatomy in addition. And surely you've seen modern books on vertebrate anatomy in general? &mdash;innotata 21:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Innotata That statement is on a level of falsehood near ridicule. There is vastly more information on human anatomy than on animal anatomy. I have a reasonable interest in animal and comparative anatomy, and have looked through new books as well as older books, as well as research articles on animal antomy. Suffice to say, there is far, far less knowledge (,and even in cases where there were knowledge it can be of questionable relevance). The scaphoid bone may exist in cats and whales, but it has no clinical significance, and its borders are relatively insignificant, simply due to that. What has occurred previously is a negligence of human anatomy in favor of animal anatomy, because of the perceived threat of anthropocentricism. Everything humans do will forever be anthropocentric, I suggest we accept that, and move on. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 09:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Innotata (my last time pinging you to this discussion via WP:Echo because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), even if anatomists and other researchers' knowledge of non-human animal anatomy is close to their knowledge of human anatomy, and I don't see any proof of this in the general sense, it still stands that human anatomy is far more studied than non-human animal or plant anatomy is studied. The study of diseases that affect both humans and non-human animals, such as cancer, also factors into that. Human anatomy being given significantly more weight than non-human anatomy among anatomists is clear by just about any anatomy book, and just by Googling the topic. As for the rest, I've already made my opinions known here in this discussion, so there is no need for me to reiterate those opinions. Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Echo isn't working even though I have it turned on. Anatomists by a narrow definition perhaps, I wouldn't know, but not everybody in the biomedical sciences who studies some aspect of anatomy. As I've alluded to, there's a difference between books on human anatomy and a general resource like Wikipedia, both in scope and purpose. We cover all anatomy, and we aren't just here for people seeking information with some connection to medicine, etc. &mdash;innotata 22:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Not "narrow definition" when it comes to anatomists usually focusing significantly more on human anatomy than on non-human anatomy. And I stated "just about any anatomy book," not "human anatomy books." I also never stated that Wikipedia should not cover all anatomy. As for the rest: If you are thinking about what is best for Wikipedia readers... Per above (meaning things that I have stated in this discussion), you and I clearly have different ideas on what best serves readers on Wikipedia regarding anatomy article titles. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22 here, and the Human lung/Lungs division is very poor indeed. What could be a high quality article is now two poor articles, both lacking proper referencing, and also with unclear division, mentioning human lungs under the "mammals" header up to an arbitrary point where readers are sent off towards another article on human lungs. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 08:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose The people reading this encyclopedia are generally humans. Being humans they care about human topics more and when we write we assume "human" without stating it every time. For example our article on pneumonia is NOT called human pneumonia even though other animals get pneumonia to. Same for all our other articles. We cover human topics first and than include topics on "other animals" at the end of our articles. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jmh649 (Doc James), "generally humans"? LOL. If there are beings other than humans reading this encyclopedia, I find that most interesting. Flyer22 (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Years of discussions have established that Wikipedia has a systemic bias for human information. Articles on health or medicine are expected to be on humans, and articles on animals are differentiated by disambiguation. I agree that it is unfair to some interests because the community has made a conscious and thoughtful decision to unfairly suppress animal interests to the benefit of the majority of readers. I would like to find a way to do less harm to the other interests but not at the expense of people seeking information about humans. There is plenty of room for discussion and compromise but it should not start with a move of an established project serving humans.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see that when articles on diseases are named they should be primarily human-relate. I went to scan some disease articles and the very first one, Cancer, is spot on. The defining sentence does not state or imply that it is only a human condition (unlike the Pregnancy article, and there is a section on "Other animals".  Perfect - it can be done!  For consistency, this approach should apply to project pages - the original point of this discussion.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I support the inclusion of animal anatomy content in this WikiProject, and I would support the creation of an animal anatomy WikiProject if there were actually interest in sustaining it. As it is now, even human topics hardly have a community, so I cannot imagine there being a participant base for animal issues, but perhaps someday. I am not trying to dismiss animal anatomy or position it where it would be less prominent. I am just describing an existing precedent which says that Wikipedia is biased to presume that health-related content always refers to humans when the information could be ambiguous. There are ways to build an animal anatomy community, and that could be done in this project, but the easiest way to do this probably avoids deprecating bias for humans.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose changing the name of this project for the reasons given in the discuss. Plus, over time we (the community) has learned that having broader WikiProjects give the WikiProjects a much better chance of having long term success. If anything I would suggest rolling other animals into this project rather than rename this project. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support unless the project decides to broaden its scope. What is unacceptable is for this project to insist on being exclusive to humans excluding articles on other organisms' anatomy, and calling itself "WP Anatomy". You can't have your cake and eat it too. See my comment above. &mdash;innotata 19:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As noted above, WP:Anatomy does not focus exclusively on human anatomy. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep noting that Flyer, but WP:Anatomy is focused exclusively on human anatomy. The project accepts articles that contain incidental material about non-humans only when other parts of the article are essential to human anatomy. This thread seems have an ideological or emotional basis. Or perhaps there are genetic or biological, oops... I mean medical grounds for the differences between editors who believe humans are at the centre of the universe and those that don't. In various forms, this debate has been going on since the Renaissance. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We (you and I) are clearly defining the word focus(ed) differently in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is, it excludes other organisms' anatomy, correct? You don't want articles on fish anatomy to be tagged as part of the project, correct? If you don't agree with Epipelagic's suggestion to broaden the project's scope, that's no cause to pretend the only real anatomy is human anatomy or denigrate their contributions to articles on non-human anatomy. &mdash;innotata 21:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You should read this thread more thoroughly, including starting with my first post in this thread (not this subsection) if you think I vehemently support WP:Anatomy working predominantly or exclusively on human anatomy. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * And do try better not to put words into my mouth (or rather under my fingertips). Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Starting at the top of, you've mostly said what sounds to me like: the project scope should, or at least is currently considered to, only include articles that are at least mostly on humans. &mdash;innotata 22:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * With my first post starting in this section (my "01:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC" post), I stated, in part, "I questioned this approach, but it's the approach that LT910001 (Tom) and CFCF want to follow, and I didn't object much to it, and so we follow it." I repeated that in this subsection (with my "07:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)" post), pointing to the discussion where I questioned the "WP:Anatomy will focus predominantly on human content" direction (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 6). So, yes, I have never vehemently supported that direction. I went along with it because I saw no need to argue against it. Or rather, I didn't feel like arguing against it. As others have stated above, WikiProjects outline their own scope. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternate proposal to widen the scope of this project
Since the medical community on Wikipedia seems opposed to renaming the project, I propose instead that the scope of WP:ANATOMY be widened to include the anatomy of non-human life.


 * Support as nominator - If this proposal is accepted, I will undertake as a member of this project to tag and do project maintenance on the articles that are specifically about non-humans. From my point of view this is the desired solution, as I originally came here because I wanted to participate in a project that deals with non-human anatomy. Non-human life could have a separate task force, so there would be no interruption or inconvenience to the editors here who are interested only in human animals. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As stated above, WP:Anatomy already does include the anatomy of non-human life; what you are proposing is that it significantly do so, with you aiding and possibly at the helm of that cause. I have no problem with this latest proposal of yours. Flyer22 (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's good, but not everybody got the memo, hence the removal of the tag from articles like fish anatomy and the entire long discussion above… &mdash;innotata 21:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This is a good suggestion which might resolve this argument to everyone's satisfaction. Invertzoo (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 *  Support Neutral WP:VET MED would also support non human animal anatomy I presume. It really comes down to what the main editors of this project wish. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This seems like the best option, and I'm glad Epipelagic has offered to help with this. I can help a little, and maybe one day work on avian anatomy articles… (If most active contributors are really against this proposal, though, we should respect that. But they should rename the project in that case.) &mdash;innotata 21:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Conditional support There are two caveats here: 1. Articles with a pure animal anatomy scope must be properly distinguished from human anatomy articles - projectside (not titlewise). Currently we are sitting on over 10000 human anatomy articles, and I'm certain noone in this project will be able to by name alone instantly tell whether certain article covers human or animal anatomy primarily. A major feature of the project has been the categorization of articles, something categories have failed to uphold. 2. The anatomy section of WP:MEDMOS states human articles should be main articles, for example: Heart. A section other animals should exist in anatomy articles where applicable, and may link to more further animal-oriented articles. As James said, most of our readers are human and will be interested in human anatomy. This should remain, and efforts to merge Human lung & Lungs, Human liver & Liver should continue. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In this discussion, it sounds like some of us who contribute to the non-human side of things are downright astonished at the way non-human anatomy is treated. Maybe that's the next discussion to have. &mdash;innotata 22:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is precisely the issue here, we should not be having that discussion post to an expansion of scope. We'd kill off a successful WikiProject because some non-members think its name is poorly chosen. Unless these issues can be cleared I Strongly oppose any expansion. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 08:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support this is a reasonable proposal I have also made above. This should also have been you original proposal, . I hope we can work together respectfully with future discussions not involving lambasting particular users, dramatic proposals, or the large-scale canvassing of areas of Wikipedia. I look forward to interacting with you, --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's well short of a respectful start. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support It is in the best interest of the content and readers, as well as the community of editors to have this project cover humans and animal anatomy. Also, agree with CFCF and others position that humans are the main focus of the main anatomy articles with animal sections and as appropriate a separate article. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: There is little reason to fear that articles with a pure animal scope will somehow invade the project; for example, we clearly have named Equine anatomy, Cat anatomy, and so on.  There are other clear ways this is already being handled, e.g. though more a genetic than an anatomy article, we have Cerebellar hypoplasia and Cerebellar hypoplasia (non-human), in articles such as navicular bone, we clearly distinguish within one article between the very different structures with that name in the human and the horse, then have a spin-off article to the disease taht affects the navicular bone in the horse.  Montanabw (talk)  02:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per my earlier comments. Human anatomy should be a TaskForce under WPAnatomy, not the topic of WPAnatomy -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And no, this is exactly the opposite of what should occur, human anatomy should stay central, and animal anatomy may be a task-force. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 07:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Neutral First and foremost, a WikiProject is a group of people who work together. The articles may be of any topic decided by the project participants. Articles may arbitrarily be included or excluded within the project's scope without any rhyme or reason, as it is up to the participants to decide what to include. The project's participants decide on the scope of the project. Wikipedians who are not project participants should not be deciding on the scope of a project they are not involved in. Furthermore, a WikiProject can have any name. The name need not reflect the scope of the project. The name just identifies the group of people working on articles of their choosing. --Scott Alter (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I do still not unconditionally support the prospect. We must agree that human anatomy is at the heart of the project, and should be the main focus of any article on a general topic. Also, for all the previous non-members of the project, what Scott Alter says is true, and there is no requirement to either expand, change name etc. etc. In a sense it is be up to the members of the WikiProject to decide if we should expand our scope, and support from non-project members does not create a consensus., , , --  CFCF  🍌 (email) 06:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Other animals have their own section on the anatomy pages - the fact that there are not that many sections overall, reflects the limited study of the many varied topics covered by human anatomy. Zoology has always been the study of other animals (and has never included humans) and this is included in WP:Animals. Iztwoz (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with CFCF's "21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)" post above, just in case that isn't clear from all that I've already stated in this thread. Flyer22 (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support A good compromise and I offer my help if desired. I would also like to oppose the comments of an editor rebuking the efforts of Epipelagic in "large-scale canvassing of areas of Wikipedia" - it was precisely this action which brought the attention of a wider number of editors to this discussion and we now have a much broader and representative range of views.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless it is a clear example of canvasing, as these editors have not been involved in the project previously, resulting an extremely unrepresentative range of views in regard to the project.  --  CFCF  🍌 (email) 14:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with this assessment, CFCF., please see Scottalter's comment above. Changing our scope won't actually change the articles that the members here will work on (which is what the 'scope' of a wikiproject is) -- this is a WP:Wikiproject, not an article -- the best way to change our scope would be to participate, so that the scope actively reflects what the users here will edit. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what those non-participants say. Scope is determined by actual participants.  We are not going to tell the WP:VOLUNTEERS here that they are forced to track or support articles that they don't want to track or support.  We don't do that to you as an individual, and we don't do that to them as a small group. You'll notice that I'm not voting in this decision.  That's because I'm not active enough to have any right to make this decision.  You can volunteer yourself to do something, but you cannot demand that some other volunteer do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Requirements upon widening scope
If we are to widen the scope of the project it is essential that human anatomy stays central to the project, and that animal anatomy occupies the Other animals section of articles primarily. This discussion can not be saved till later, and must be dealt with before any expansion of scope.

For an example of what has happened when we don't follow this distinction one may look at Head and Human head. Currently the main head article holds more information on arthropods than it does on humans. This is already in the MOS, but the project should additionally strive to cover primarily human anatomy, and have this expressed in its scope for overview articles to cover primarily human anatomy, and to avoid titling articles as Human xxx, or XXX (human).

Support -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 09:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Animal anatomy is mostly covered in articles that stand on their own merits, not as mere appendages to articles about humans. Exceptions occur with overview articles like Head or Heart. I agree with CFCF that such overview articles should have a central focus on providing an adequate account of the human anatomy, and that the corresponding anatomy for other animals should be treated in a section of its own. But in most articles on animal anatomy, such as Bird anatomy, Spider anatomy or Fish fin, human anatomy has little relevance and may not figure at all. Article like those should stand in their own right, and not be shoved aside as having some sort of inferior status. This appears to be a round-about attempt by CFCF to reinstate the idea that anatomy is about human anatomy, and that the anatomy of other animals is somehow a minor appendage. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Epipelagic I think you missunderstand me, and we may actually be very close to an agreement. The central point I wanted to make is that overview articles should be human oriented. As for articles where human anatomy is irrelevant, they will need their own MOS division, similar to the current way WP:MEDMOS expresses other animals as a section on overview articles. Other editors have expressed wished to relegate anything more than fleeting human content to Human xxx, or XXX (human) titled articles, something which I feel is a major disservice to our readers. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 10:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * May I suggest as a way to cut through our differences, that the parent WP:ANATOMY be split into two task forces, one for human anatomy and one for animal anatomy. I think we can agree that overview articles like Head or Heart would belong to the human anatomy task force. But, contrary to what what says above,  the vast bulk of articles dealing with animal anatomy are not the overview articles. They are articles unambiguously dedicated to animals, where humans hardly figure or do not figure at all. Then each task force can be somewhat independent, and avoid treading on each others toes. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a good suggestion. There seem to be a number of editors interested in animal anatomy to populate it. I've proposed creating a taskforce below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with Epipelagic's suggestion above. Some review articles on anatomy are less related to humans, e.g. Nose and humans might get only a brief mentio, or they might be totally unrelated to humans e.g. Melon (whale). To make humans the primary subject of the Nose article seems to be twisting things to an extreme point of anthropocentricity. To reject the Melon (whale) from a project on "anatomy" seems non-sensical.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree profoundly on the point that nose does not relate strongly to humans. The nose is a central organ of respiration, and has great clinical, societal etc. importance. I'll give you that tail might only need a fleeting mention of humans, but if you look at the articles human nose is longer than nose, and those articles should be merged with human noses being central to the article. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 14:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither support nor oppose We had an RfC on this a while ago, here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy/Archive_5, which I think hits the money. If there's lots of information on the animal anatomy, then it should occupy the main article, and humans should be secondary. If there's not much, then animal anatomy should be put in the 'other animals' section. I think this middle view is likely to satisfy the greatest number of users. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Support IMO human nose should be moved to nose and the content at nose should be moved to noses in other animals with a summary within the nose article called "Other animals" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments/Questions
 * If the scope were widened, would this change the interests of current project members or change articles that they will work on? It does not seem that way, as the existing members seem to have a clear interest in human anatomy.
 * Is there a group of editors interested in collaborating on non-human anatomy across major taxonomic groups and looking for a forum for collaboration? I don't think this group of individuals have been identified, other than people from many animal-related projects not involved with this one recently joining the discussion after some canvassing.
 * Will editors of human anatomy articles and non-human anatomy articles successfully collaborate together on the same set of articles? This seems doubtful as there seem to be strong differing of opinions. The people interested in human anatomy will likely stick to those articles, and people interested in non-human anatomy will stick to the animal type they are interested in.

If the answers to all 3 of these questions is not yes, then there is no reason to change this project. The previous mention of articles titles containing "human" and content of the articles is a separate issue, but does demonstrate the difference in thinking between the groups. If the human anatomy editors and non-human anatomy editors have strong differing opinions (which they do seem to have), then forcing them together into one project is not likely to be productive. --Scott Alter (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Creating a taskforce for animal anatomy
We currently have a project that's that's existed for 5+ years with a scope regarding human anatomy for 4+ years and several active users. No amount of discussion will change these facts, nor will it change the fact the majority of our articles relate to human anatomy. I think it would be useful and pertinent to create a taskforce to cover animal anatomy.

The benefits would be this: creating a taskforce provides a central place for discussion, coverage, and recruitment of interested editors. I think it is a useful place to have a number of conversations about animal anatomy and our scope going forward, work out strategies to ensure we are comprehensive in our coverage, and address any issues relating to the coverage of animal anatomy and structure of articles. If it is created, it will be our first task force and reflect the fact that animal anatomy is important and has been overlooked for some time. Articles that are important for animal anatomy can also be ranked by importance, and in addition tools such as quality rankings can be generated.

As Wikipedians know, a task force is a "subgroup of a larger WikiProject" (WP:TASKFORCE). The decision to create a taskforce is one that should reside with members or prospective of the project. I invite comments on this proposal below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments from current members
 * Support as proposer. There is broad consensus to broaden our scope, and an animal taskforce will help us do this. It can act as a central discussion point, place for interested editors to congregate, and can help strategise how to recruit members and add articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I support the creation of an animal task-force with the proviso that we not need a similar human anatomy task-force. My fear is if we were to proceed differently the result will be, an inactive WikiProject Anatomy, an active Human Anatomy taskforce, and come a few months an inactive Animal Anatomy task-force. This will make it more difficult for prospective editors to find their way to the relevant projects/task force. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 14:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments from prospective members

Is there any sign of a group of editors who work on non-human anatomy across major taxonomic groups? There is no point in setting up a taskforce with no editors. Editors writing on bird, spider, and fish anatomy will generally find the project covering those groups the most relevant to them. For the rest this project should serve well enough as it is. At this stage of Wikipedia most of the existing Wikiprojects are not really viable or useful, and I'm wary of wasting energy on new ones. Typically someone enthusiastically tags thousands of article with the new, or newly amended, banner, and then nothing else happens. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments from other wikipedians
 * This group isn't really large enough for task forces to be practical. It looks like you have two prospective members of the proposed taskforce.  A taskforce of less than half a dozen is likely to fail (dead talk page, conversations actually happening at the main page).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement from Epipelagic
I agree there is little current activity on animal anatomy articles, as indeed there is little activity on science articles in general. However, the low level of activity on animal anatomy articles (and even more particularly on animal physiology articles) may well be partially because no project has ever acknowledged and managed them, providing things like appropriate guidelines, navigation templates and identifying and addressing gaps. Some of the inactive projects are inactive because, in the past, they did their job well. I'm sure many benefits would rapidly follow from the establishment of animal anatomy and animal physiology projects, and that some of the missing editors that are needed might well appear as a consequence. I didn't mean to initiate a turf war when I attempted to find a proper place for animal anatomy, and triggered instead the heavy ownership issues we see on this page. It would be an uphill journey trying to bring order to the animal anatomy articles in such an a discouraging environment. So I would like to drop my concerns and leave WP:ANATOMY to its own world view, accepting that it belongs to the medical community. I'm thinking instead, if I find a couple of other science editors who are interested, of establishing a separate project, WP:ANIMAL ANATOMY. However I have concerns that some of the more vocal advocates of the view that anatomy means human anatomy will not allow such a project to get on with its work. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Animal anatomy
It's quite exciting to have our scope expanded! (Well, it's looking that way). What are users thoughts on: (please don't support/oppose -- see above for that). Have I missed anything? I don't think there is that much to do, to be honest, but there are a couple of things. Any users joining us for animal anatomy editing, are there any other missing tools that could be updated? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * New scope "This particular project supports all articles on human anatomy."
 * Scope may need to state "This does not include articles about specific animals", do other users think this may become a problem? eg new/uninformed editors deciding to add animalia articles to our scope?
 * I'll update the list of recent changes in about a week and then @ the beginning of november, as we'll have a few new articles. I can create an animal-anatomy-specific watchlist if there are interested users
 * New users welcome to add themselves to our participants list
 * There's a way to categorise articles on animal anatomy here using an in-project classification (ie this is intended for articles within our scope for collaborating with users or educational projects with specific interests): WikiProject_Anatomy. This produces general lists that hopefully match the interests of involved editors (eg biology classes, zoologists, anatomists, cellular pathologists, embryologists) so we can easily give them article lists.


 * Should some provision be made for cellular and plant anatomy? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We have a number of articles on cellular anatomy listed in the 'microanatomy' category here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy. As a sidenote, cellular anatomy hasn't thus far included genes, which are included under WP:Genetics. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the following scope:
 * "This project primarily supports human anatomy articles, and secondarily animal anatomy." -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 07:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What is that supposed to mean? What is the difference between "primarily support" and "secondary support"? Why the distinction? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See above. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 10:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Closed per above discussion as moot. Feel free to reopen if this is not the case.--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Plant anatomy
I'll split this off into a separate thread so comments can be localised. I don't think we should include plant anatomy, it is quite distinct from the anatomy of animalia. I don't know if there will be much cross-over expertise in our members, and the articles seem to be covered under WP:Plants. We could add a disclaimer to the scope to make this clear (eg "We do not support articles relating to the anatomy of plants or genomics"). Perhaps other users feel differently --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Per this above discussions, I'm going to close this thread as a little premature. If other users object, please remove the closure. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)