Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia medicine standards

Is this an appropriate place to discuss the organisation of anatomy (on wikipedia)? I've got a few thoughts about what should get a full article, and what should just be a section of another. (e.g. Sternum should get an article, and Manubrium would just be a section of that.) --Tristanb 11:43 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

Stuff copied from User_talk:Kosebamse:


 * brachialis vs brachialis muscle
 * I can see what you mean about this muscle. It does make it two words though. There is no other brachialis that i know of. The NZ native pohutukawa, might be refered to by many as pohutukawa tree, but i'd say the former term would be the best wiki entry for it.


 * What about the other muscles? i've seen a few that perhaps should also have muscle within the wiki. But for most, (especially those that are already two or more words,) i don't think it is necessary.


 * What other muscles do you think need changing? Tristanb 01:07 24 May 2003 (UTC)

I don´t know if any need changing, but we should keep the terminology consistent to avoid inaccuracies. There is, to my knowledge, only one human muscle whose proper anatomical name is single-worded (the platysma, but I may have overlooked some others). Of course you could refer to any other muscle as, say, "the biceps", and that is often done in clinical slang, but it is just that: slang. In a textbook or lexicon, you would always find it as "biceps brachii muscle" or in Latin, "musculus biceps brachii". Some muscles are known in common language by single-word names, such as the biceps or a few others that are of relevance to athletes, such as the serratus. This is, however, where confusion starts, as there is indeed another biceps, the biceps femoris, and there are two different serratus muscles. IMO the clean solution would be to have entries for such popular things as "biceps" under single-word names, but these must then redirect to a page with the proper anatomical name (which is BTW "biceps brachii muscle", not "biceps brachii (muscle)" as I am sure some would suggest). Less popular things should stay unter their anatomical names and not require any redirects. Kosebamse 07:40 24 May 2003 (UTC)


 * With the biceps/biceps brachii example. I made biceps a disambiguation-type page, with a note that it most commonly refers to biceps brachii.
 * I don't see too much wrong with having an article serratus anterior, with serratus anterior muscle just being a redirect. Leaving out the word muscle avoids the problem of the Latin version being used.
 * On the other hand, I wouldn't want a new article vagus, written about the vagus nerve.


 * So... on balance i probably agree with you.
 * BTW do you want to move/copy this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia medicine standards? (it'd keep my orphaned comment company).

The disamb page solution seems fine, after all most people would look there first. I just want to make sure that proper scientific terms are used as headings wherever possible. And thanks for the link, I´ll copy this to that page (and perhaps some more stuff that I wrote earlier). Cheers. Kosebamse 11:56 24 May 2003 (UTC)

There is no link from this page to WikiProject Medical Conditions, so I thought I'd mention it. I suspect the purpose of the page is similar and should possibly be merged. Just a thought. -- Ram-Man
 * And a good one. Some medical articles should have standardized structures, e.g. medical procedures, diseases, drugs, and WikiProject Medical Conditions could serve as a basis. Kosebamse 10:08 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)