Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Article advice

Anatomy guidelines - suggestions

I can think of a whole lot of issues that need to be addressed, but here are a few things I might recommend. (I'm just tossing these around for discussion's sake--I'm not personally fixed on any of them. I'm being arbitrary for a few of them.)

1) The official name should be according to Terminologia Anatomica (TA), the current international standard. That is, the English version of the term (as translated by TA). This would mean that 'pterygopalatine fossa' would win over 'sphenopalatine fossa', . The Latin term should be included in the article for reference.

Sounds interesting, is there a reference for this? -- Serephine ♠ talk - 12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A reference for what exactly? If you are referring to the credentials of TA, you can ask your local anatomist I guess. After less than a minute of searching my bookshelf, I found a reference to it on the back of Grant's Atlas. The TA came out in 1998, so check any fairly recent anatomy text. Dorland's Dictionary online (at Mercksource.com) had this to say:

the official body of anatomical nomenclature created jointly by the Federative Committee on Anatomical Terminology and the 56 Member Associations of the International Associations of Anatomists and published in 1998. It supersedes the Nomina Anatomica [NA].

Anyway, most of the entries as they are comply, but a few are still really out-of-date terms from Gray's.--Mauvila 13:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, was just wondering if there was an online source we could check the correct names at -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the TA book, so I could always answer any question. But I think one can find out the TA term at the Dorland's online dictionary at Mercksource.com. The Latin TA terms will have [TA] next to it, and the standard English version follows. --Mauvila 05:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some topics will be difficult, especially where the headword's English definition (historical and common) is not fully coincident with its modern anatomical definition. (See arm and its discussion.)--Mauvila 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) The TA does not choose between British and American English (e.g. both esophagus and oesophagus are acceptable). No idea how to resolve this.

Probably just a first-come first-serve basis for editors -- Serephine ♠ talk - 12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To recap what was said below, it seems the current consensus is to go with American English spellings for anatomical structures, but to prominently mention the British English spellings in the first sentence of that structure's article. Is this correct? --Mauvila 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3) For certain things, the TA is indecisive. One should be decided on and uniformly applied, but the other should be mentioned. E.g. 'Fibular' should beat 'peroneal', but article should prominently mention the peroneal synonym.

4) The current port from Gray's is a good base, but Gray's is out-of-date. Certain concepts need modernization. But I think the templates are a good start. (e.g. a muscle should have a chart that includes attachments, innervation, function, etc).

Definitely to the muscle chart! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5) The articles should be accessible to those with a high school education, but it should also be very relevant to a medical school's gross anatomy class. I think 'anterior' is fair game, but should only be used when 'in front of' lacks the precision or sounds funny.

A matter of taste, I like how you're being flexible about it but would give preference to anatomical terms. I think the context and style of the article indicated which should be used -- Serephine ♠ talk - 12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6) Perhaps every page should have a link to an article on understanding basic anatomical terminology. This article would only include the bare essentials (sup, inf, ant, post, med, lat, anatomical position, etc) but not so much as to overload someone who is unfamiliar with anatomy (eg rostral, caudal, pronation, supination...)

Yes yes and yes - a little header or something else unobtrusive linking to a page on anatomical terms is an excellent idea. Even if, just in the introduction, it was stated with a link somewhere (e.g. the pharynx is located, in anatomical terms, anterior to the oesophagus). Even the words anterior, superior etc. could be linked to a similar page.

7) Super-ambiguous words like 'waist' should probably not be used.

Yeah, if it doesn't make sense or isn't specific in nature there is no need for it to be in an article in the first place -- Serephine ♠ talk - 12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8) Mnemonic devices are probably not appropriate. Maybe a link at the bottom of the article might do. Facts about the structure that just happen to aid in memorization may be fine. SCALP is probably fine when listing the layers of it, but all of the OOOTTAFVGVAH devices are not. I think subtlety is the key here.

9) Certain things that are bilaterally symetrical should be referred to in the singular. E.g. 'the glossopharyngeal nerve runs behind...', not 'the glossopharyngeal nerves run behind...'. But it should be stated at the beginning of the article that there are two of the item.

10) Etymologies of certain words would be helpful. These would contain the source word (transliterated into English for Greek/Arabic/etc.) and its definition. Features that are derived from other anatomical features (that still has shared term in it) should refer the reader to the structure that provided the term, not to the original derivation. For example, the etymology section of the deltoid tuberosity should refer the reader to the deltoid muscle, not to the definition 'delta-shaped, triangular'. It should be the deltoid muscle article that refers back to Greek.

Yes, etymologies are extremely useful, place them in wherever possible! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11) The discussion page of anatomy articles should provide a link to a page containing whatever the accepted guidelines end up being.

Great idea, the more people that know the better. A template could be designed easily for this -- Serephine ♠ talk - 12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12) The word 'moeity' should not be used anywhere.

Especially since it is actually spelled "moiety". <G> DocWatson42 (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC) (who is on a periodical hunt for the mis-spelling)[reply]

13) Maybe a section for clinical relevance for the given structure.

14) Maybe a section on variations (where applicable). Sources would probably need to be specifically cited for this part.

15) Information should be duplicated as little as possible, and anatomy is especially vulnerable. For example, the lacrimal parasympathetic pathway should not be extensively explained in multiple articles (like facial nerve, greater petrosal nerve, pterygopalatine ganglion, AND lacrimal gland), but rather have an agreed upon article that addresses it.

Yep, I noticed this today in the chromatography sections of wikipedia - many articles would deal with the same thing over and over again. Use of headings and a {{details|article}} template is invaluable here -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16) The first sentence should say what the object is (e.g. a bone, a nerve, an artery) and something specific about that object. I see a lot of articles starting off with stuff like "The (object) is slender and vulnerable to injury." --Mauvila 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17) ARTERIES - In articles about arteries, it should be mentioned early on what the "parent" of that artery is. (What is a good word for "parent"?) Moreover, the article should list what the branches of the artery are, as well as any regions/structures supplied directly by this artery (i.e. by unnamed branches). --Mauvila 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18) VEINS - Veins (perhaps) should first mention what it feeds, and then mention its tributaties ("branches"). This stresses the central end over the peripheral ends. For example, the brachiocephalic vein(s), the superior vena cava (the receiver of the blood) would be named first, and the the "branches" (tributaries) would be named afterwards. In describing the course of the vein, however, it is appropriate to describe it in the direction of blood flow. --Mauvila 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19) NERVES - Nerves should be described in a central to peripheral manner, regardless of whether it is efferent (motor), afferent(sensory), or mixed. The word "anastomosis" should not be used to describe nerves joining together. The content of the nerves (fibers) should be included when it is non-trivial. This could mean the class of fibers (e.g. parasympathetic, somatic motor, taste) as well as origins of the fibers (C3, T5, Cranial nerve 7). Included should be "parent(s)" (including hitchhikers), named branches, communicating branches, and structures innervated (and what type of innervation). --Mauvila 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20) MUSCLES (specifically skeletal muscles) - Attachments, actions, innervation, synergists et al., etc. I've noticed that a lot of text book authors avoid the whole 'origin' vs 'insertion' in describing attachments because it is often arbitrary, and sometimes the origin and insertion depends upon the current action of the muscle. I think origin/insertion designation should be mentioned (explicitly or implicity) in the 'actions' section, and not in the 'attachments' section. --Mauvila 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21) Relations (or "what's nearby"). Where applicable, neighboring structures should be named, as well where in the body the structure is located (especially vertebral levels, where applicable). --Mauvila 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22) Depth of article. I think the article (at least) should include what would be testable on an average medical school/basic medical science gross anatomy test. With the trochlear nerve, in addition to its source, it should be said that it is the only CN that emerges from the back of the brain stem. "Fun facts" like that. In fact, I think it might be good to have a section in the discussion section of each article on "FACTS TO INCLUDE", and these can be translated into prose for the article over time (and removed from the list in the discussion section). To see the current state of anatomy on wikipedia, just find a medical school anatomy test (a verbal one, not an atlas-based identify-the-structure one), and try to take it using wikipedia as a source. (Sort of like an OPEN BOOK test). Wikipedia is currently inferior to modern texts (even if we took all the pictures out of the texts), but it has the capability of being a lot better (as a reference for verbal anatomical information). (Wikipedia anatomy is better than Gray's anatomy, seeing as how Gray's anatomy terminology is so out of date that it is unreadable). --Mauvila 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

23) HUMAN ANATOMY - I think the articles should be centered primarily on human anatomy. That's not to say a structure should only be human, but it should probably be set apart in a different section of the article. I'm thinking of something like a "Comparative Anatomy" section, and have it mention stuff like fetlocks or whatever. For REALLY general terms (like lungs), see next guideline. --Mauvila 00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24) SHARING - I don't think Human Anatomy should claim really broad anatomical terms/structures. That is, for a subject like ears, we shouldn't go in and say "Hey, this is how this article is going to be arranged". Even if we tried, that 'Famous people known for their ears' section will probably make it back. For that topic, it would probably be best to confine ourselves to a couple of sections, the main being a "components of the human ear" section that links to other (of "our") sections. For an article like the one on the leg, it might be better to come up with a separate article, such as 'leg (TA)' or 'leg(anatomical)'. This article would properly discuss the fascia, bones, etc. between the knee and ankle. --Mauvila 00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

25) EMBRYOLOGY - a section on embryological origins of structure may be appropriate for some articles. --Mauvila 00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'm just throwing this stuff out there just to see what people think. --Mauvila 08:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to guidelines

Agree with most all of this. Additions / exceptions:

The standard on Wikipedia seems to be to use US spelling and have the British ones redirecting. Occasionally I've seen something like "The esophagus (British English: oesophagus) is a..." It may not actually be the case with esophagus, but it's an option - otherwise I'd favour sticking to the US spelling for preference.
I think it's appropriate to include mnemonics - this site is used as a learning tool, after all, and most of them are at least borderline acceptable. As you imply, they shouldn't be the focus of the article, but there's a place for them, IMHO.

Nmg20 12:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong--I like mnemonics. But they take away from the general encyclopedia/textbook feel and turn it into more of a study guide for those who are required to memorize things for class. And my main concern with them is that there are about fifty different mnemonics for every anatomical thing worth remembering. People see one, and go and add their own. If there were a 'standard' mnemonic, I would not object. But check out the quantity of terrible anatomy mnemonics out there on the internet today. Having to choose only the good pnemonics might make some articles terribly subjective. And most of the best mnemonics are quite dirty. --Mauvila 13:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well as an Australian user and user of British English I would say that the "standard" is not to use American English, rather it seems more Americans are editing the articles. Both are acceptable as long as it's not disrupting the article. It's a tricky situation though... up until a couple of years ago I didn't even know Americans spoke and wrote a dialect of English but now on Wikipedia it seems to be the majority. The language probably should be changed to Americanese though, haha, it's a bit of a misnomer to call it "English" -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose American English to be the standard for the anatomy articles. According to another wiki page, the U.S. has 67% of the world's native English speakers. But that's not why I think it should be the standard here. The American spellings are shorter, and British English often uses ligatures for imported terms, which are not fun to type multiple times. --Mauvila 05:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, ligatures are irritating (hence why I don't use them), but I've always taken offense to some A.E. spellings and the way in which many Americans purport it to be the only English worthy of existing. A personal thing likely, but considering English has so many dialects and is spoken in so many countries I don't think Wikipedia, the world encylopedia, should have to conform to just the USA's way of spelling things -- Serephine ♠ talk - 08:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we go with the current form and use US english with British English noted where appropriate, as here from the start of the hematology article: "Hematology (BE: haematology) is the branch of internal medicine and pediatrics that..." And I see your point on the mnemonics, Mauvila. My gut feel is that they're going to get on here one way or another, however - perhaps a standard note along the lines of "There is one or more mnemonics associated with this topic. Please see --name of page we keep them on here--"? Nmg20 16:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using this

Should I put some of this in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, this stuff is really just brainstorming. Mauvila 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paired structures

Does anyone object to the project endorsing a writing style that speaks of paired structures as an individual structure--this is essentially the anatomy textbook standard where one writes about a vagus nerve in the singular, even though there are two? And along similar lines, how about we set a guideline that says: whether the structure is singular or plural depends upon how it is listed in Terminologia Anatomica...I think the TA decides by only looking at one half of the body...if there are more of a vein on a single side, then that structure is plural. This is often seen when discussing veins...they list veins like the subclavian vein as singular, while veins that are venae comitantes are listed as plural (e.g. brachial veins). Also, when discussing paired structures in the singular, we should indicate that it is a paired structure. For example, we should mention that the common iliac artery is a paired structure...it is present on both left and right sides, while the median sacral artery is not a paired structure. Mauvila 19:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]