Talk:Aditus to mastoid antrum

Reference article

Will a reference to the following article be appropriate? [[1]] Kobus Burger (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not the best reference in the world due to age, but since no other references are used in the wikipedia article is would actually improve in my view. You can always write and add the reference, maybe somebody can find a better one. Also this {{Refimprove|date=January 2013}} tag could be added. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aditus to mastoid antrum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824034327/http://anatomy.med.umich.edu/nervous_system/ear_ans.html to http://anatomy.med.umich.edu/nervous_system/ear_ans.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Improvements(?)

@Iztwoz: Hi. I don't quite understand what the disagreement is here. The bulk of the wiki articles about human anatomy have been stuck at the copy-pastes from the ancient 20th Gray stage for almost two decades. I think it's high time to rewrite them according to up-to-date sources and terminology.

The copy-pasted passages often deal with the topic of the article in a round-about way and contain irrelevant detail (in this case, see the "mastoid air cells, which vary considerably in number, size, and form"), contain possibly obsolete terminology and concepts (in this case that the ampulla ("ampullated end") of the superior semicircular canal likewise creates a bulge upon the wall of the aditus - more recent literature mentions only the lateral one), and the language is often convoluted (note the length of sentences, punctuation and word order). Furthermore, the lack of inline citations complicates adding more content. As a side note, I try to stick to standard anatomical terminology of location to avoid ambiguity (except where there is a separate introduction section which should present a simplified summary) - 20th Gray meanwhile uses the common terms of location ("back, behind, front, above, on, under ...").

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Jay Hodec Past discussions on the Anatomy pages agreed on the use of clearer language including the use of front and back etc. The small stubs you have been editing in many cases stand as they are - not much if anything has been changed from original Gray's; and you have been using more obscure terms like anteroposteriorly. Also I have just removed some citations quoting WP:OVERCITE. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Iztwoz My interest in getting these articles about individual anatomical structures up to shape is that there often isn't really any good online resources for these, and especially any that combine and compare what multiple scholarly sources say about them (and individual scholarly sources often present an incomplete picture or even disagree about the details). So if you want to, say, find out what exactly is the aditus to mastoid antrum, you may have to consult multiple anatomical textbooks on your own (which is a huge pain in the butt). I think wiki can be a really useful resource here.

This is a bit of a digression, but I have my qualms about some WP:Anatomy guidelines/suggestions here. Regarding use of lay terms of location etc., while I understand the motivation with articles about more general subjects (e.g. face or leg), it doesn't make much sense to sacrifice preciseness for simplicity with more arcane structures like this one that aren't of general interest anyway: they're packed with references to obscure structures anyway, so what does a general reader benefit from learning the antrum is "in front of" the epitympanic recess if they don't know what the epitympanic recess is. Just to illustrate the problem with common terms from the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy/Simplifying_anatomical_terminology essay: proximal/distal simply does not equate to upper/lower - if you say that "the basilar artery ends distally by splitting into two terminal branches", substituting "ends below" just doesn't work. Similarly, "squamous cells" refers to a very specific thing; "flat cells" does not. In any case, the meaning of "inferior", "proximal", "posterior" should be fairly familiar to an average English speaker (and there's always the Simple English Wikipedia).

Regarding my approach to inline citations: I may add multiple inline citations of same source to note the cited page; I may add multiple references for the same passage when multiple sources back it up (they often don't so that I have to cobble together info from multiple sources to establish a coherent narrative and sometimes mention that sources disagree - so it's useful to note where there's consensus); I'm careful to always add an inline reference in such a way that the preceding passage is entirely backed up by it (not partially).

Regards,

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I hope you spend some time reading the WP:CITEKILL and WP:REPCITE, these are clear Wikipedia guidelines.--Iztwoz (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Iztwoz I believe I'm adherent to these guidelines, though I understand it may appear otherwise at first glance. Just wanted to take a moment to clarify, that's all.

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

P.S.: Though I'm sure I've made some slip-ups here and there (e.g. [2]). Jay Hodec (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)