Heartanatomy

Misc.

Some of the text on this page is rather out of date.

What about English terms? When talking about anatomy it seems sensible to adress professional and lay readers likewise. I am not quite sure whether individual entries really should be moved to English-headed articles. To be sure, most anatomical terms have their English counterparts, but some of these may lack the precision of the scientific nomenclature. And then there are the Nomina Anatomica (Paris 1955, Sao Paulo 1997) which are widely adhered to. I believe we should make up our minds how anatomical terms should be handled and which nomenclature should be used for article headings, lists etc. There is also an entry named On-Line Medical Dictionary which seems to be nothing more than a proposal, but if such a thing should ever arise, it might be wise to connect anatomical etc. overviews to such a dictionary and leave the anatomical entries under their scientific names.yes this isvery importantKosebamse 12:04 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

I prefer using English terms, and additionally mentioning the scientific ones. This also solves the problem of lacking precision. Texts are otherwise hardly readable by lay-people - Patrick 12:26 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

But if we want a classification or list to be scientifically solid, we can't do without a precise nomenclature. I am afraid that there are many things in anatomy that don't have a precise name except the scientific one. Perhaps there could be a list or classification for lay readers and one for professionals. There could be a short explanation under a common name for the lay reader, and details under a scientific name, for the professionals. Of course, it would be la ot of work making everything linked everything else in a sensible way. Kosebamse 12:42 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

The main part of the content is dedicated to human anatomy which has a separate article. Andres 17:36, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Why do we have "butt" leading to "buttock"? Should we replace it?

Done. Ortonmc 15:07, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The last paragraph of this article appears to be taken from another text, with references to a "current edition" and the trailing elipses. Yoderj 14:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggest 3 possible wiki links and 1 possible backlink for Anatomy.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Anatomy article:

Can link exact form: ...m that of the medical man it consists of a knowledge of the exact form, position, size and relationship of the various structures ...
Can link physical anthropology: ...omy of different races of mankind is part of the science of physical anthropology or anthropological anatomy. ...
Can link English poetry: ...] {{Biology-footer}} ----- There is a historical type of English poetry called an '''anatomy''', or more precisely an '''[[amatory ... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

In Pedicel, can backlink ANATOMY: ...ngle flower or spore-producing body within a cluster<br> 2. ANATOMY stalk-shaped body part: an anatomical part that resembles a...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Morphology

"Morphology (biology)" redirects here, but should it actually redirect to a more specific entry on morphology, such as the animal morphology article? Mineralogy 03:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree and will do this.HappyVR 19:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Though not a perfect solution Morphology (biology) now redirects (eventually) to comparative anatomy - which seems about right. Is this ok.?HappyVR 20:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Latin terminology

Most of you wrote these in English terms. I'll try and translate them in latin if no one shows interest, since it is a language globally used and globally understandable.

Categorization

Why is diaphragm found both under organs and under uncategorized terms?

Template

I was bored, and so I transferred all of the information on anatomy into a template. If I've done something very wrong, don't be afraid to revert it. (I know the template is ugly, but that can change easily)A J Hay 09:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Anatomy & physiology

It's not clear to me how anatomy and physiology relate: in what ways are they different? Thanks. 131.211.43.45 12:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Anatomy is the study of the body's parts, physiology is the study of what they do (this is in very basic terms, of course.) Naysie 12:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Human vs. non-human

It strikes me that since the Human anatomy article is the main article, that the "human" section should be shorter and even the human pictures should be moved over to the human article. That way, this article can branch out into frogs, rats, fetal pigs and whatnot. -- 64.9.234.5 02:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This work

"In the present edition of this work..." The next several sentences seem to be quoted from some other book, describing how its articles are presented. It doesn't seem to fit into Wikipedia. Art LaPella 01:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

History of Anatomy

History of Anatomy deserves its own subsection in this article. I would write it myself were I not daunted by my lack of medical knowledge. 211.28.237.149 05:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

For such a foundational area of science we need some history. MotherFunctor 12:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Failure of GA nomination

I've failed this for noting as a good article for reasons that I can't see being resolved in a few days. The article is much too short to even adequately summarise the topic and I agree with the above start rating.

There are no references at all, only some external links. Requires references per - citing sources
Not broad enough as it only mention animal and plant anatomy.
Does not seem to meet any of the requirements in Wikipedia:What is a good article?

- Peripitus (Talk) 07:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It mentions what the study of anatomy is, then branches off into a section of human anatomy which links to a main article, but doesn't mention anything about the other types of anatomy as mentioned in the opening paragraph. So, my suggestion is as follows:

- opening paragraph: what is anatomy and why do we study it? May contain origin of word and difference between the study of anatomy and the study of physiology - Types of anatomical studies e.g. human, animal etc (possibly linking to main articles) This can be in separate paragraphs, not all lumped together for the reader to figure out.

any other suggestions and rewrites are welcome :) Naysie 12:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the "Article Creation and Improvement Drive" team should not attempt working on medical topics (and perhaps any very technical page), going on their results of this page. I have just done a partial tidy up. Snowman 19:55, 19:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this mnemonic help?

Moved from main page to here. Is it suitable for the main page?:

An easy way of remembering all the systems of anatomy is as follows:

DR. SCUMLINER

D - digestive system R - respiratory system

S - skeletal system C - circulatory system U - urinary system M - muscular system L - lymphatic system I - integumentary system N - nuerological system E - endocrine system R - reproductive system —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowmanradio (talk • contribs) 11:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

The images in this article all deal around human anatomy. I placed the images at the appropriate article section, but I think the ones here are best removed alltogether. I placed 4 combined images at human anatomy which are better placed at this section. Regarding the name "human anatomy", I think it's better to change it to Anatomy of Homo sapiens, so as to signify that it's just another animal species; should be placed under Category: animal anatomy too. This as other species do not always have an adjective; eg allot of species even only have a latin name and not even a english one.

KVDP (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

Anatomy on In Our Time at the BBC Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Too limited

Anatomy is a much wider field than just "human anatomy"... --Crusio (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)