Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lower leg, shin and calf

Articles (or even redirects to sections in more general articles) are needed for the lower leg, specifically the shin and calf. --Una Smith (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hippocampus at FAC

In case anyone missed it, this is at FAC - might be good to see if anything left out comprehensivenesswise and see what else needs to be done (or help out). Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Brain GAR notice

Brain has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Cruciate ligament

Cruciate ligament has been converted from a dab-of-two to a start class article. It covers cruciate ligaments in several joints, in humans and in other animals (dogs, horses). It needs better organization. Please help. Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Offering access to histology images (public domain)

I have equipment and access to government histology and pathology slides, and can provide public domain images of most tissues and many common pathologies at large size and good resolution on request.

I would be delighted to provide as many images as possible to this and other interested projects, but I don't have the time to check individual talk pages across many projects. If you'd like microscopic images of tissues, please send an email to histology.request@gmail.com with the request in the subject line (ex: "artery wall" or "tuberculosis granuloma"). Happy regards, Glacialfury (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This sounds wonderful! I would suggest uploading them en-masse to wikimedia commons. Then anyone who needs them in the future will be able to find them readily. -Craig Pemberton (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Systematic bias

This has been getting better slowly. I have noticed that there is widespread and systematic bias in the WP anatomy articles to only cover anatomy with respect to humans. Unless an article on a body part specifically mentions the species in the title (ex: as snake dentition) the article should at a bare minimum at intro state that "this structure is present in such and such taxa . . ." And only then, where appropriate "In humans . . . ". An organ, say the plantaris, has a much richer and deeper history than its short tenure in the human body. The article says it is vestigial, with no context given. I'm certain that something out there is still using this body part. Hundreds of such examples could be given. -Craig Pemberton (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

ConnectomeWiki Released

Recently this year (March 2009), there has been a paper published by a number of neuroscientists entitled:
"A Proposal for a Coordinated Effort for the Determination of Brainwide Neuroanatomical Connectivity in Model Organisms at a Mesoscopic Scale".

The ConnectomeWiki is an open and collaborative platform concerned with the goals of this proposal.
Please see User:ConnectomeBot for the discussion! --Unidesigner (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Could I enlist your help?

Hello all, can I enlist your expertise with two anatomically related articles that I just created and am struggling with as they are not particularly documented about on the internet. Ape hand deformity and Convexity of radius. Any improvement for these short articles is a good one... Thank you very much in advance, regards, Captain n00dle ^T/_C 03:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A discussion about this bot at the Village pump

I opened a discussion at the VPR (Village Pump Proposals) about this ConnectomeBot's RFBA. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Error, can someone please correct

Can someone correct the drawing on the stub entry for isthmus of uterus. It is a diagram of MALE organs rather than female! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.87.141 (talk • contribs)

(User was referring to this page: Uterine isthmus not this one Isthmus of uterine tube as far as I am aware. I have no idea if these are the same or different, but I tagged both pages with {{distinguish}})

Although it doesn't matter, I have update the template with a sex field i.e. {{Genitourinary-stub|sex=male}} or {{Genitourinary-stub|sex=female}} Thanks, best regards Captain n00dle\^Talk 13:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Body Water

Hello all, the body water page has suffered some persistent vandalism to the numbers (and maybe good faith edits also). I can't see from the page history which is the 'good' state, and the reference for the page is not accessible. Could somebody with access to the correct numbers have a look at the page and fix it up? Thx. GyroMagician (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Header and Archiving of talk page

Hello all! I was just quite bold. And:

• Set up automatic archiving of this talk page (using a bot). As it was much needed, there being 60 discussions on this page, may from a while ago!
• added a nice heading to this page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy.

What do you all think? Best regards, Captain n00dle\^Talk 14:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Cuboideonavicular Joint

I was just looking something up and noticed the information on the page for the aforementioned articulation is infact incorrect and is an exact duplicate of the information on the Cuneonavicular articulation page. If someone could amend this that would be fantastic. Thanks MikeJKemp (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Translation project

User:Proteins and I are in contact with a technology company that would like to use some software it has developed (a kind of graphic interface for translators) to increase the amount of health-related information in developing-world language Wikipedias. Since this is quite a large company, this project might eventually cover many languages, but we are thinking about starting off small at around five (eg transferring content from the English to the Swahili Wikipedia is one leading option). The real work will be in developing a community of translators and bilingual experts in each destination language, and the company is willing to help with this as well, but at our end we will need to provide a list of articles on "essential health information", internationalize these as much as possible, and polish them a bit. This proposal is still in its initial stage, but could people who would be interested in participating sign up here. Thank you Tim Vickers (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture

Does anyone else agree with me that stating when a muscle was casually mentioned within a film is not worth noting in an article on anatomy? I refer to this here on this page - Pubococcygeus muscle. I am stuck in an edit war with the person who made this edit and I request a third opinion, whatever that may be. Freikorp (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Maxillary central incisor

This article has just undergone a reassessment as part of the GA:SWEEPS. The review found several outstanding issues that need to be addressed if the article is to retain its GA ratings. The reassessment can be viewed here. If the problems identified are not addressed within the next 7 days, the article will be deslited. If there are any questions or queries, please contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 06:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Stem cell

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at Talk:Stem cell/GA1. The article appears to contain many copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are addressed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mammal anatomy

Does this wikiproject include general mammal anatomy within its scope? -- œ^™ 08:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not, it is Wikiproject Anatomy! Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Vastus medialis

Could an expert have a look at the article Vastus medialis. It looks kind of ignored, and there are some very contradicting statements in the article and talk page. Thanks team! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey everyone! I have just completed a revision of the rotator cuff tear article as a part of a class project and would greatly appreciate your input to the quality of each section. Any critiquing (ie grammar, spelling, information, benefits, insufficiencies) we welcome and encourage to better ourselves as researchers. Thank you for your time and consideration!Sallisonm (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing anatomy topics

I've updated my list of missing anatomy topics - Skysmith (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Reproductive anatomy

Google's private foundation is supporting expansions of the Swahili Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, and Arabic Wikipedia. (See this announcement.) Forty medicine- or health-related articles, some of particular interest to developing countries, have been identified as targets. Basically, Google has offered to have these articles reviewed and professionally translated -- and we'd naturally prefer that the translators were looking at a good, accurate article.

Female reproductive system (human) and Male reproductive system (human), topics that are within the scope of this project, have recently been reviewed by an outside expert, who suggested several freely accessible sources and some ways to expand these seriously incomplete articles. Please read the comments on the talk page and see whether you can help. Even small contributions are very much appreciated.

If you are interested in helping with the overall project, please consider adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project to your watchlist, improving these articles, and/or contributing advice at the talk page. All editors are welcome. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Facial Canal Page Review

Would someone please be kind enough to take a look at my comments regarding the Facial canal. I am suspicious of a sentence and marked it as dubious, however, I'm not an anatomist nor do I pretend to be one.
Adamlankford (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Musculoskeletal Injuries Project

My Movement Anatomy class will be working to improve or create articles on musculoskeletal injuries through June 2010. Your comments and suggestions on how to improve these articles are greatly appreciated. See my talk page for more details of this project. The articles to be improved are listed below. Scholarchanter (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The topic which my group will be tackling for this project in musculoskeletal Injuries is Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. In our project we will discuss what it is and how it affects our musculoskeletal system as well as how it is developed and if there are possible ways to avoid this Injury. Marixa1105 (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

My group's project will be on the injury to the ACL. We will attempt to add to and revise any of the information already available in the current wikipedia article. This includes general information, causes, prevention, and treatment. The ACL is a vital ligament for proper movementhe anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) receives the most injuries then the other ligaments. Injuries of the ACL range from mild such as small tears to severe when the ligament is completely torn. There are many ways the ACL can be torn the most prevalent is when the knee is bent too much toward the back and when it goes too far to the side. Tears in the anterior cruciate ligament usually take place when the knee receives direct impact while the leg is in a stable position. Torn ACL’s are most of the time related to high impact sports or when the knee is forced to make sharp changes in movement and during abrupt stops from high speed. These types of injuries are prevalent in soccer, high jump, basketball, and football. Research has shown that women involved in sports are more likely to have ACL injuries then males. ACL tears can also happen among older individuals from a slip and fall and they are seen mostly in people over forty due to wear and tear of the ligaments. An ACL tear can be determined by the an individual if a popping sound is heard after impact, swelling after a couple of hours, severe pain when bending the knee, and when the knee buckles or locks during movement.

A torn ACL is less likely to control the movements of the knee. When tears to the ACL is not repaired it can sometimes cause damage to the cartilage inside the knee because with the torn ACL the tibia and femur bone are more likely to rub against each other. Immediately after the tear of the ACL, the person should rest it, ice it ever fifteen to twenty minutes, produce compression on the knee, and then elevate above the heart; this process helps decrease the swelling and reduce the pain. The form of treatment is determined based on the severity of the tear on the ligament. Small tears in the ACL may just require several months of rehab in order to strengthen the surrounding muscles, the hamstring and the quadriceps, so that these muscles can compensate for the torn ligament.

If the tare is severe, surgery may be necessary because the ACL can not heal independently because there is a lack of blood supply going to this ligament. Surgery is usually required among athletes because the ACL is needed in order to perform sharp movements safely and with stability. The surgery of the ACL is usually done several weak after the injury in order to allow the swelling and inflammation to go down. During surgery the ACL is not repaired instead, it is reconstructed using other ligaments in the body. There are three different types of ACL surgery. The first type is the patella tendon-bone auto graft is when the surgeon takes a piece of the patella tendon and uses it to reconstruct the new ACL tendon. The second type is hamstring tendon auto graft this is when the surgeon uses two tendons from the back of the knee and doubles them to become the new ACL tendon. The third type is when tissue is taken from a cadaver to for the new ACL. Patella tendon-bone auto graft and hamstring auto graft are the most common and preferred because it produce the best results. After the surgery, rehabilitation is required in order to strengthen the surrounding muscles and stabilize the joint. kjnavalta (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The topic which my group has decided to do our project on is Low back pain. Low back pain is one of the most common musculoskeletal disorders affecting people worldwide. My group will be discussing the prevalence of lumbar injuries, risk factors which cause lumbar pain, the mechanisms of injury, therapy after injury and injury prevention. Our overall goal is to help the community out by providing them with further knowledge on this disorder.Dominicbaiocco (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We as a group will be discussing and illustrating rotator cuff tears. A rotator cuff tear refers to the shoulder region of the human body, were there is one to multiple tears to the tendons of the rotator cuff muscles. The rotator cuff muscles have four tendons that are connected to the shoulder, which are the supraspinatus, infraspinatus, teres minor, and supracapularis. The supraspinatus tendon is the most common tendon that is torn. The reason we chose this topic is because rotator cuff tear injuries are among the most common injury in sports. It’s most common in baseball pitchers, who throw a baseball over-hand everyday and without having the shoulder strong can lead to a tear. In the biomechanical world, over-hand throw is not normal motion. Throwing an object repetitively, can cause a lot of stress or even strain to the shoulder tendons. We will illustrate the anatomy of the shoulder and show the areas of were those tears might occur. We will also introduce what can cause a rotator cuff tear and how to diagnosis the condition. When we have an injury, the idea is to treat it so we can get better. We will discuss the different treatments that will be affected on making the shoulder stronger again. As we are gathering all this useful information, there will be studies that will help support what we are discussing. comment added by Sallisonm (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

We are studying the achilles tendon and the effects, treatment, recovery of achilles tendon tears. This is related to a wide spectrum of sports activities, and any activity that requires you to be on your feet. Anytime you walk, run, or jump, being able to flex the ankle joint is necessary to complete any of these tasks with any kind of functional capacity. The Achilles tendon provides the leverage by which the biarticulate gastrocnemius (calf muscle) can flex, and in turn plantar flex the ankle. The gastrocnemius is located on the posterior side of the leg and originates above the knee at the medial and lateral condyle of the femur. The Achilles tendon inserts on the calcaneous bone of the heel. We are going to examine many of the causes of achilles tendon tears, whether it be from an exhaustive sporting event to stepping off of a ledge the wrong way. we will also discuss many of the common treatments practiced on patients both surgical and non surgical. Finally, we will go over the recovery process, and determine which type of treatment is best for each patient, with different types of tears.76.90.73.93 (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi everybody! I always find collaborative school projects like this to be quite exciting, and I'd like to help in any way that I can. I've already begun by leaving some comments on the peer reviews for low back pain and carpal tunnel syndrome, and as an experienced prose reviewer, I'd be happy to provide more specific feedback whenever you need it. I also have access to a number of anatomy/physiology textbooks (which I've listed on my userpage), so I might be able to help out with sourcing too. In any case, thanks for joining us! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The ACL injury group has moved their project to a separate article. Find our project here at KIN 412 ACL injury.Kjnavalta (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Lower limb anatomy CFD

Hello, this is a notice for this WikiProject in regards to a current category for discussion. The category Category:Lower limb anatomy is currently nominated to be renamed. Your comments are welcome, and the discussion can be found here. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 05:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Embryonic heart

Can someone who is in the know check whether the above is needed when we have Heart development and Heart#Early development? Cheers, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Poll: Requested move: mesencephalon → midbrain

Hello, I wish to find out what people think of the idea of renaming the article on “mesencephalon” to “midbrain”? Please to go talk:mesencephalon to offer your input. Bwrs (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Anatomy articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Anatomy articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it true?

on: [1]

it says "the tongue contains a regenerative feature, contained primarily within the intrinsic muscles, that actually allows the tongue to regenerate and grow back into its original shape and structure if it suffers severe damage[citation needed]. However, if it is damaged too far back, the regenerative properties of the tongue begin to decrease and it may become unable to fully redevelop." is it a myth or true? any answers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.209.130 (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Any apparent errors in this image?

Surface projections of the major organs of the trunk, using the vertebral column and rib cage as main reference points of superficial anatomy.

I've puzzled together this image of the organs of the trunk. Now, I'd appreciate some feedback, for example, are there any apparent errors in it, or any other issues? Mikael Häggström (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Vertebra articles

There is currently two articles, Vertebra and Vertebral column that seem to cover the same topic. I'm no expert on anatomy (hell, I don't know nothing), so I hope the medical geniuses here sort this out - either a merge, a better distinction between the two, or just delete the merge tag if it's just fine. An old discussion on the talk page was inconclusive. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That discussion seemed pretty unanimous about merging as well, so I performed the merge.Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Organs of the trunk nominated for FPC

I've nominated the image at right for WP:Featured Picture Candidates at WP:Featured picture candidates/Organs of the trunk. Your comments are appreciated. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

For your information, the voting period is over now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Models of anatomy

Hi, Are there any experts here on anatomical models? I am beginning to fix various articles in the Computer generated imagery neighborhood. There is a paragraph there about architectural images, and a paragraph or two about "anatomically correct" models would be nice. I can manage the computer simulation parts, but I am not sure how the technology is used in anatomy. Are anatomically correct models actually used for instruction in medical schools etc.? I guess they are, but conformation from someone in the field will be good. Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute includes images of a torso rendered pretty nicely. Is it anatomically correct? But the article Virtual patient is waiting in the lounge of the ER room, waiting for medical help, with fellow patients Visible Human Project and Living Human Project. Those are not on my immediate path, but it would be nice if someone would give them a facelift of some type. Eventually a good template for uniting these will be nice. And talking of facelifts, Facial expression and Computer facial animation also need help.

I used to have a copy of Gray's book on anatomy (not that I tread it much) but about 2-3 years ago, as I was cleaning things up I threw it away, because anything I needed was on the web. So the future of anatomy is online. Wikipedia articles should probably catchup to that.

But first things first. Help on a paragraph or two in Computer generated imagery will be appreciated. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What does the term "investment" mean in anatomy articles?

Hello! I'm posting a link to Talk:Fascia lata here to generate attention for my questions on that talk page. I hope doing so is Wiki-civil and I apologize if it is not, but clarifying the term "investment" could improve a number of anatomy articles.

To summarize: I've seen the phrases "fibrous investment" and "fibrous expansion" in a few human anatomy articles. Do these phrases mean the same thing? Is "investment" a current term in the field of anatomy, or is it obsolete and therefore only appears in Wikipedia as a legacy from Gray's Anatomy's public domain text?

Sorry that I only have the wherewithal to pose these questions and I appreciate any help. Thanks, --Geekdiva (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, "investment" in this context simply means that something is covered by something else (like in "wrapping a piece of cloth around"). It can be synonymous to "expansion" in some contexts. Both terms are still widely used. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

human vs. non-human: can we focus on that a bit?

I just stumbled across Cervical vertebrae. That article is obviously Homo-centric, and that's fine. However, it also talks about non-human anatomy, and in that respect is misleading. Nobody calls the trunk vertebrae of dinosaurs "thoracic". The same story is repeated in other anatomy articles. I tried to correct Cervical vertebrae, but that adds data in a place where it doesn't really belong....

I'd like to fix all that, best as I can, but it is a job far too large for one person, especially for someone with little time. I need help from someone (maybe several) with good knowledge of human anatomy to work with me. If one or two folks volunteer, I'd like to make a concerted effort to get at least the bony anatomy of tetrapods properly added, in appropriate subsections. Anyone willing to go the distance? HMallison (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Pudendal plexus and Prostatic venous plexus merge

There is a (lack of) discussion about these two plexuses here. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Muscle categories

I proposed this idea on Category_talk:Muscular_system. Basically, I think it would be cool if we created more categories to classify muscles besides where their bulk is located. At the moment, I'd like to create them based on their actions on joints, such as Category:Knee flexors. Corresponding to this would be articles about these categories, such as what that joint movement indicates, and activities associated with it. Other possibilities would include things like Category:Femur muscles which could be for muscles that originate or insert onto the femur. Currently on muscle articles we do have sections for "action" and attachment/insertion points, I think categories would supplement this well as people could see all the muscles that attach to a said bone, or other muscles that share various actions and work in tandem during certain movements. This also would also give guidelines about how various stretches hit muscles and how they can be modified to stretch some differently.

If anyone objects to this, feel free to drop me a line, but I'm so enthusiastic about the idea I'm going to start constructing them around the hip flexors since someone already created an article about that, and go from there hopefully covering the entire body. I can stop and revert if it's a problem, but as it is, muscles only seem to have one category so I don't think it would get cluttered. Consider how many biographies/character pages have dozens of categories in some cases. This would at most add 3, totalling 4, not even enough to go into a second line for most people, so we'd just be filling in white space with useful categorization. Dictabeard (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I just fixed up some of these categories and additionally created Category:Muscles by action and location, separate from Category:Muscles by action. The only problem with this sort of categorization is that some categories will only have just a few articles (ie Category:Forearm pronators) - which can be considered overcategorization. That's partially why I did not create the categories Category:Pronators and Category:Supinators - they'd each only ever have 1 subcategory (unless I'm missing another body part that pronates and supinates). All anatomy articles could further be categorized by location, that is more detailed than head/torso/upper/lower. For muscles, naming by insertion point or individual bone is probably overcategorization. I'd recommend using categories continuing the somewhat existing scheme like at Category:Muscles of the lower limb: Category:Calf muscles, Category:Foot muscles, Category:Hip muscles, and Category:Thigh muscles. You can also look at the anatomy navboxes to see how the articles are sub-grouped. --Scott Alter (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess it didn't seem like overcategorization since we seem to have so few categories for muscles. About pro/supi, I think that classification can also be used for the ankle joint although I think it's also called eversion/inversion. I also just thought of another problem with the idea of doing it by insertion point in that a lot of muscles don't even insert to bones, so I wouldn't know what categories to put the transversus abdominis or lattismus dorsi since they both connect to fascia. About 'calf muscles', I've heard some people refer to the tibialis anterior as one of these even though it's on the front of the shin and not the rear. I'm not sure how to relate, I think I should probably read up on the etymological origins of using calf this way to find out if it's correct. DB (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Human Body nominated for deletion

I have nominated Portal:Human Body for deletion. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human Body. Do not remove the {{mfd}} tag while the discussion is in progress. Thank for your time, regards, JJ98 (Talk) 19:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Embryology task force

Does anyone else think that an embryology task force would be good for this WP? Given the demise of the Developmental Biology WP, I think that WP:Anatomy is the best place for this task force. Many talk pages for fetal/embryo terms are already tagged with the anatomy banner. The task force could focus on embryo/fetal anatomy articles like, pharyngeal grooves, ductus arteriosus, mesoderm, allantois, etc. I also wouldn't be opposed to a different name, that would encompass embryo/fetal anatomy; i.e. Developmental Biology task force. Cmcnicoll (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If an embryology task force were to be useful, this would be a good place for it. This project isn't really active, but more like a place for WPMED to categorize anatomy articles. If the categorization (ie project tagging) of embryology articles could be useful for collaboration, then I'd support the task force. Otherwise, I'm indifferent to its creation, but not opposed, and I'd help with its creation. --Scott Alter (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Gray812and814.PNG and File:Gray812and814.svg

Hi. This image is widely used on English Wikipedia and others. 2 years ago I expressed some disagreement with the nerves depicted in this image - File_talk:Gray812and814.PNG. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Anatomy pictures - highlight word/topic of interest?

The pictures in anatomy related articles all have pictures that appear to be from one source. Would it be possible to highlight the actual anatomy part that the wiki article is about? The font of the labels are difficult to read, so highlighting (or somehow showing the actual anatomy-part-of-interest) would be very helpful. A suggestion from the discussion page was to have an image annotator (perhaps one that directly pointed out the body part of interest?). Thanks. Eve (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The pictures don't help at all if the person who reads this is already in the medical line of work and actually knows where the "chonnae" is before stumbling here. The verbal explanation is totally useless for non-professionals who might just like to know where the chonnae is, like me. After reading this article i know that it is somewhere in the nasal cavity, that's all i got from this. This same problem is in all of the anatomy sections, pictures are blurred, the verbal explanations way too complicated, a simple header would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreamK (talk • contribs) 17:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

List of obsolete terms

Would it be sensible to update anatomical terms in Wikipedia per [2]? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Do these need an article?

I am unsure where to direct the concepts of active insufficiency[3] or passive insufficiency[4]. They seem like important concepts, but I am unsure if I should make pages for them (or perhaps a shared page like active and passive insufficiencies or if it would be more appropriate to create and direct the terms to a new subsection on an existing page? I am unsure where the most appropriate place would be though, like if you would put it on 'muscles' or if there would be a less general article more appropriate to put it in. I think it would be good to explain how the force potential changes and how this affects bi-articulate muscles as well as all muscles in general in terms of what point in a RoM people are strongest in, and the training effects of training in short/long active/passive lengths. AweCo (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The first line of an article

When I first began working on Wikipedia, the first paragraph was supposed to be such that the common man could read and understand it. If you wanted something more in depth, you went further. If you like, I'll attempt to go to every page you have and list the ones who follow that policy, but I have yet to find any in the wikiproject anatomy section that followed it. So far we have blood, lymph, and skin. I don't feel that any of these subjects deserve a college level answer on that first paragraph. They're kid look-ups and you have things like arthropod exoskeleton and ectodermal tissue as words in the first paragraph! Couldn't you make that first paragraph just a bit less techno-babble? deepsack (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't realize blood and lymph weren't part of my anatomy. My statement stands.

I listed the real Anatomy section and began looking at the first paragraph. I graded them on appropriate language for the age group most likely to read it, errors I found (yeah! me! go figure.) in the article, and just pure awesomeness. If there isn't anything next to the word, it's just generally bad. Some deserved statements, you'll see.  :) Here are the ones I"m mentioning:

• Appendix
• Brain - a 7 year old should be able to read at least the first sentence and understand it. This one didn't even pass my understanding.
• Breasts - I got a chuckle out of this one. It was so technically put that a kid might be able to pick out a bit of what you're talking about, but it wouldn't be any fun!
• Chest - There is just plain no information
• Diaphragm - type it in and what do you get? Certainly not "diaphragm". Diaphragm should still be the word in big letters on top. Then in the first paragraph you can explain there are different ones. This way, those not in the know (or looking for a different kind of diaphragm. *ahem*) won't necessarily decide this is the wrong place.
• Eye
• Heart
• Liver - be still my beating heart! This was the perfect example of giving information without resorting to ungainly, haughty, in swarm words.
• mouth - and it would have been so easy to make this for younger/less "in the know" people
• neck - well done
• Nervous System - another lalapalooza! Very well written.
• Nose
• Ovary
• Pancreas - I didn't understand the first five words but I kept going! Good thing I did! I didn't understand the next four sentences either. deepsack (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, you have a point - but so do I! This is wikipedia, not simplewiki. I got scolded a lot for an article (outside anatomy), but each and every edit I made to make it more understandable for the stupid, "educationally challanged" or very young ended up getting trussed by the very same people. hey, foff! In the end, we need to make it very clear to ourselves that an encyclopedia lives by

a) using internal links (i.e., don't explain if you can hotlink)

b) a basic understanding of the English language being required

c) helping those who at least have a basic grasp of the subject already as well, not only the clueless.

Harsh? Yes. But also honest. HMallison (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

List of subjects in Gray's Anatomy

Hi all, I've been looking at the articles listed at List of subjects in Gray's Anatomy. Each article, created and abandoned in 2006, is a word-for-word copy of the index of the 1918 version of Gray's Anatomy.

Now, I'm uncertain of the value of such articles, but what's worse, the articles are in terrible need of maintenance. For instance, in List of subjects in Gray's Anatomy (E), we see:

• Epigastric artery, deep or inferior: p. 623
  • peculiarities of: p. 623
  • surface markings of: p. 1321
  • superficial: p. 629

When the pages were created, each entry was simply wikilinked as is. For instance, the last entry should link to Superficial epigastric artery, but that wasn't done - it's just a link to the disambiguation page superficial. And of course a wikilink to peculiarities of makes no sense at all. All of the links in these articles are in this state, except the ones that have been fixed by dabfixers over the years.

In their current form, these articles are basically worthless - unless someone wants to go through the thousands of wikilinks in these lists and give them meaningful targets. But is it really worth it? Do these articles add enough value to justify the time it would take to fix and maintain them?

There's a reason I'm asking this. Due to the way these pages have been constructed, with hundreds of links to disambiguation pages, members of the WP:DPL project are spending lots of time fixing dablinks in these lists. Considering, though, that no one else has shown any interest in maintaining these articles since 2006, I feel like that's wasted time. Therefore, I'd like to projectify them to WikiProject Anatomy, so they won't be lost, but would be out of the main article space. --JaGa^talk 09:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, transfer complete. I've added a section to Open Tasks. --JaGa^talk 07:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Problems at Lesser auricular nerve

Lesser auricular nerve appears to have been the subject of some vandalism/dispute about whether it exists. If someone could take a look at the history and figure out whether my change actually fixed it, I'd appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No reference to this nerve in Gray's Anatomy 39th or 40th editions. Delete article? Hovea (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Anterior cingulate gyrus not equal to BA25

In the Pathology section of Anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) it is claimed that the ACC is equal to Brodmann area 25, and then some studies about involvement of this area in depression are cited. I believe that BA 25 constitutes only a small part of the ACC, so this claim should be removed and the material should be moved. But it should not be moved to the article on BA 25, because not only BA 25 is involved in depression, but the whole "subcallosal cingulate gyrus", which consists of area 25 and parts of 24 and 32 (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21145043). Maybe a new article about the subcallosal cingulate gyrus is in order, where the material about deep brain stimulation in depression could be collected? I don't feel confident in making these changes. AxelBoldt (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Merging stubs

What is the prevailing opinion on many short articles vs. fewer longer ones? Does every structure really need a separate article? I'm sure the issue is broader than this, but because I am interested in the hand, this is what caught my eye. I would like to merge, for example, all of the extrinsic muscles of the hand into a single article. At present, each of the muscles have their own separate page. Nearly all of them are a very short stub-class article and a lot of information is duplicated. They have been around for several years in this state and it seems likely they will stay that way.--Taylornate (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Cross-posted here.--Taylornate (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to create a distinct article for extrinsic muscles of the hand, but if you're actually proposing to merge away hundreds of articles, you'll actually need to make the case as to why Wikipedia is better with those articles removed. --Arcadian (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Needing comments from someone with knowledge of oral anatomy

I have recently written an article entitled Sublingua, which is about the secondary tongue found in prosimian primates and possibly some "primitive" mammals. Because the topic is not well studied—and indeed, the world's leading lemur veterinarians admitted to me that they learned new things from the article—I need help fixing up links and terminology, largely because so many anatomy articles default to human anatomy, which may or may not share the same terminology or refer to the equivalent organs or tissue. I have started a discussion on the article's talk page. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

New photos by Anatomist90

Dear WP editors, there are several issues with the recent inclusion of user Anatomist90's photos to virtually every anatomy article on WP.

First of all, the vast majority of pictures shows plastinated specimen, but are prominently featured and presented to be showing "the real thing". This is misleading. It would be the same to include a photograph of a mummy as the leading picture in the Human article and simply label it "Human".

Second of all, many pictures do little to enlighten the reader. They are showing heaps of indiscernible grey stuff and dead tissue with colorful arrows and labels and a watermark. As such, they are instantly recognizable. It's like Gray's Anatomy, but without the clarity and artistic quality.

Now I know, photographs of living organs etc. without copyright problems are hard to come by, and I do not have a better alternative. I am also sure that the author has added his pictures in good faith.

But in my opinion, many of the photographs, which are now prominently featured, are not adding value to the articles. To the contrary, they give a layman (who has not heard of plastination) a false impression of what the article's subject actually looks like. There are some exceptions, but I suggest that most of the items should be placed under the respective "Additional images" section and clearly labeled as plastinated specimen.

Disclaimer: I am not a doctor or biologist, not even a regular editor on WP, and I do not have the intention to start an edit war. But I think my arguments are clear enough to warrant a debate. 79.253.12.8 (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Extensors

I'd like to request some other users to come participate in Talk:Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand. It's a new article made in december and its creator has redirected 10 articles to it already. I'm going to be bold and revert them back, because Template:Merge and community discussion was not used beforehand. I really like the new article, but I think we lose something in not having distinct articles. We had very useful distinct images of the muscles highlighted. The new page is useful and should stay, but I think we gain more from having them co-exist.

'Not enough information' doesn't seem like a valid reason, because stubs are fine and there's always more to learn about anatomy. Y12J (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the specific section where we are discussing. Please use that location as a place for centralized discussion on this issue.--Taylornate (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment concerning Erection

A request for comment has been posted at Talk:Erection#Reverts of recent edits.

Your participation will be welcomed. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Replacement of human anatomy image

Previous image

New image

I think the current anatomy image, Human anatomy.jpg, should be replaced with a new one, Anterior view of human female and male, with labels.jpg, in the articles Human, Human anatomy, Human body and Sex differences in humans.

Advantages with this new one include:

• It has much higher resolution
• The female model is directed towards the camera in standard anatomical position
• There is data of the age, height and weight of the models
• The defined height has also availed for scaling the models so that their relative sizes reflect what they are in reality.
• They have the same lighting and color profile.

Backside of new image.

• Images of the backside are available
• There is a written informed consent from both models regarding its license, and they know that it's going to be displayed in Wikipedia. In contrast, the previous image of the female model is simply one found to in the database with a copyleft license, but it's unknown if there was any consent from the model.

Disadvantages with the new image:

• The female model is underweight
• Both models have removed pubic hair. (I had hoped to have the photos including that, and informed the models that they should not shave before, but I eventaully had to accept the state of the models at the time of photography.) On the other hand, the previous image doesn’t display pubic hair either.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Easy Support. Nice work creating the image and crafting a rhetorically convincing point-by-point argument presentation. Please replace the image in the article human as soon as appropriate and feel free to replace it again in the future if you are able to improve it according to the criteria you mentioned. Chrisrus (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Support: all of the points you outline are correct, and the position of the female relative to the camera in the old image is slightly odd. Wikitorrens^T 07:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've performed the changes now. Please comment if there are any other issues concerning the new image, either here or on its talk page in Commons. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A late note of congratulations. This is an improvement.

On a side note, the female model doesn't seem to be standing up straight. Her shoulders are at different heights. I wonder if perhaps she has some sort of mild scoliosis or something. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed she is. I don't know if it's positional or anatomical, but I nevertheless made a note on the fact on the description page. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, it looks like her third, fourth, and fifth digits on her left hand are anatomically curved towards the thumb. I'm sure there is a name for this condition, but I don't know it off-hand. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Support. The woman's posture in the new picture is the anatomical position. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Although the replacement female is not obese like that in the last version, the male model, like that in the last version, is a 'twig'. --81.100.44.233 (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You might want to go read the article on body mass index. The previous female model was at a normal, healthy weight. The current female model is underweight by at least eight pounds.

The man, on the other hand, is firmly within the normal body weight range. His body size is not necessarily what you will see in porn videos, but it is entirely normal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Normal is a subjective term. In the U.S. that would be overweight or obese. I have to admit, though, I dislike the application of BMI here because of these sorts of problems with "normality" in Western culture as well as the overuse of BMI for non-sedentary individuals. Not only do I feel that we should display images of a male with moderate muscle tone, but the female should have equally moderate muscle tone for her gender. Models will generally be "pretty and thin". – VisionHolder « talk » 19:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No, he wouldn't be overweight. Do you know what a body mass index is and how it is used to determine whether a person is overweight? The male model's BMI is 20.5. The normal, healthy BMI for males is 18.5 to 24.9. His BMI is higher than 18.5 (the minimum for a healthy weight) and lower than 24.9 (the maximum for a healthy weight). That means that the male model is at a perfectly normal, healthy weight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. Coming in a little late, but I also support the new image over the old one. In the future, I hope we can get unshaved models. It would also be nice if the women didn't paint their nails. (The the new female model has red or pink toenails.) But otherwise, a general improvement over the previous image. And as stated above, ideally any future models should have moderate muscle tone, even if it complicates the BMI. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Of all pictures someones decides to use an picture of an extremely anorexic Asian guy + some really small **** (referring to below) to promote further exaggerated size of Asian men. I understand Asian male as smaller but that guy looks like he has an penis malfunction and his figure like women is ridiculously anorexic. WarriorsPride6565 (talk (talk • contribs) 4:50, 12 march (UTC)

C'mon guys, can't we do just a little bit of research? We have the guy's weight and height. We've calculated the body mass index. It's all right there on the image page. So why would you say that he's anorexic? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, as stated on the talk page for the Human article, the choice of the particular male model had nothing to do with race or size of particular body parts, and there's no reason to believe that there is any malfunction. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC on reversion of merge of hand muscles

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Extrinsic_extensor_muscles_of_the_hand#RFC_on_reversion_of_merge. Should the merge of articles on individual muscles to Extrinsic_extensor_muscles_of_the_hand be reverted? Taylornate (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Good thing. Mikael Häggström (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research. —Wavelength (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Spelling on images

Hi everyone. I just nipped over from WP:Dinos to browse thru some anat. articles and I noticed that a couple of the images on Ilium (bone) contain labels for illiac crest and asetabulum. I don't have the time myself but thought I'd let you know in case anyone wanted to a quick fix (even in MS Paint). Cheers. Secret Squïrrel approx 3:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

looks like it's already done...

12:00, 01 January 2008 (UTC)

why isn't the color coated blood supply / innervation template on the wp page?

Supinator_muscle see how this has the color coated thing with blood supply and innervation? is that a template? if so, why isn't it on the project page?

12:00, 01 January 2008 (UTC)

Serratus

I'm hoping to get some input on this. The serratus posterior is divided into upper/lower (serratus posterior superior and serratus posterior inferior) segments. Content on the serratus anterior article implies that the front rib muscles have 3 key regions based on Platzer's research. I made this more prominent by following the naming format introduced by the SP regions.

However I am wondering about the actions because I thought the SA muscles were all involved with upward rotation, but there are confusing statements added to some articles:

• Pull-up_(exercise)#Shoulders: The serratus anterior pulls forward to rotate the scapula downward and stabilize the shoulder during descent.

It's fact-tagged but I'm hesitant to remove it in case there' some truth to it. Can anyone find sources supporting the idea that the serratus anterior could be involved in downward rotation too? This seems to be based on this page which makes the claim, but I'm not sure that sole claim is reason enough to ascertain this, since so many other sources say otherwise, that it is an upward rotator, not a downward rotator. I'll contact the person and ask for further input. Y12J (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct in that it rotates the scapula upwards and I apologize for the sloppy wording in the article. Feel free to change that to read to the effect of it rotates upwards during descent to stabilize the scapula, and not rotates downwards.AerobicFox (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Reorganising to deal with stubs?

I noticed that the topic of anatomy is, in general, full of stubs. Wouldn't it be a good idea to reorganise by merging articles into larger ones? To give an example, I doubt if intercostal arteries and subcostal arteries really need separate articles. At the very least they should be merged, and (in my opinion) preferably they should both be merged into a larger article section "Vasculature" of Chest wall (currently another stub), with redirects created where necessary.

I propose merging all such stubs we encounter into larger articles. Of course, a problem we encounter is then that we need to decide if we organise by system (cardiovascular, digestive, etc) or topographically (thorax, abdomen, arm,...). I would propose the latter, not least because several organs can fit into more than one system (do we put the liver into the digestive or endocrine system?). I think that this way we can drastically clean up wikipedia's now dispersed anatomic information. In time we could give anatomical entities that grow too lengthy in description their own section back. (I suppose this will soon happen with entities with strong pathological significance).

Any thoughts or discussion would be greatly welcomed. Elennaro (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

One concern I have with merging is loss of data in infoboxes. Perhaps as a conservative measure only merge articles lacking infoboxes or share the same infobox data? I'm not so keen on merging into location-centric articles. For one thing, various muscles, arteries, organs either span two organism subdivisions and can only be assigned to one arbitrarily. But I admit to being a splitter rather than lumper when it comes to anatomy. Cmungall (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox data can be merged into a table as done at Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand.

This obviously needs to happen, but you will encounter strong opposition from a vocal minority, as at the above article's talk page.--Taylornate (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Your merged table seems to capture everything in the infoboxes, but there is also value in keeping information in a standard format.

You seem very sure of the need to merge, but I don't consider this obvious at all. I personally find it very useful and intuitive

having an individual article for each named muscle, with infoboxes, images, and more detailed information where available.

I think it is also useful having the article for the muscle grouping (even if there is some redundancy), and don't see why

both granular and specific views can't co-exist. I notice that some of the individual articles have information not in the summary page -

for example, Abductor_pollicis_longus_muscle includes information about variation within humans and across mammals - it would be

difficult to cram this into a summary page.

Things are in a curious state right now - Abductor_pollicis_longus redirects to the summary article, whereas

Abductor_pollicis_longus_muscle remains pointing to the article on the specific muscle. This seems to be the pattern for

all of these muscles. I believe that while the specific pages continue to exist, the intuitive thing is to redirect

the shortened muscle name to the specific page - would you agree? Cmungall (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)