Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy: Difference between revisions
→"Explaining the Human Body" videos: new section |
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 13) (bot |
||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
This is an all-too-common human problem, where bad teachers with poor self-awareness or perhaps a poorly developed [[theory of mind]] do not seem to realise that what ''they'' know is not what everybody else knows. More empathy is required here – as are better labels. Put yourself in the reader's shoes: What do they know? Can they tell what they're looking at? Making up for such deficiencies in the image caption is better than nothing but also relatively insufficient. Just as an example of this problem (that's not fixed as of this writing): The [[Gerdy's tubercle]] article features an image, and while you could technically argue that what's shown in the picture includes Gerdy's tubercle, really your best bet of seeing a picture that actually shows you Gerdy's tubercle and points it out to you is to just search Google Images instead. That's not to knock Gray's Anatomy woodcuts or other old images, but really, if you want to use such a picture to point out a structure, then you need to edit the picture and upload a copy in which what you're actually trying to show is clearly labelled.<br />—[[User:ReadOnlyAccount|ReadOnlyAccount]] ([[User talk:ReadOnlyAccount|talk]]) 11:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
This is an all-too-common human problem, where bad teachers with poor self-awareness or perhaps a poorly developed [[theory of mind]] do not seem to realise that what ''they'' know is not what everybody else knows. More empathy is required here – as are better labels. Put yourself in the reader's shoes: What do they know? Can they tell what they're looking at? Making up for such deficiencies in the image caption is better than nothing but also relatively insufficient. Just as an example of this problem (that's not fixed as of this writing): The [[Gerdy's tubercle]] article features an image, and while you could technically argue that what's shown in the picture includes Gerdy's tubercle, really your best bet of seeing a picture that actually shows you Gerdy's tubercle and points it out to you is to just search Google Images instead. That's not to knock Gray's Anatomy woodcuts or other old images, but really, if you want to use such a picture to point out a structure, then you need to edit the picture and upload a copy in which what you're actually trying to show is clearly labelled.<br />—[[User:ReadOnlyAccount|ReadOnlyAccount]] ([[User talk:ReadOnlyAccount|talk]]) 11:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
== Guideline on Multiple muslces in one article == |
|||
Sometimes there is a lot of muscles covered in one article and sometimes each muscle get thier article, would it make sense to make a kind of guideline on when what makes sense? [[User:Claes Lindhardt|Claes Lindhardt]] ([[User talk:Claes Lindhardt|talk]]) 20:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::@{{u| Claes Lindhardt}} great question. The main guideline is at [[WP:MEDMOS]] and the general notability guidelines ([[WP:NOTABILITY]] as well as [[WP:SPLIT]] and [[WP:MERGE]]) tend to influence whether subjects are covered separately or on the same page. If you can identify a group you think need attention I'd be happy to help out by having a look with you or working with you to propose a guideline on this. [[User:Tom (LT)|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:Tom (LT)|talk]]) 23:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Credibility bot == |
|||
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to [[User:Credibility bot|Credibility bot]]. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at [[Wikipedia:Vaccine safety]] and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at [[WP:CREDBOT]]. Thanks! [[User:Harej|Harej]] ([[User talk:Harej|talk]]) 17:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks {{u|Harej}}, another useful project of yours. Would it be possible to run a once-off report? I am not sure we could sustain regular reports but it would be interesting to have a look at. [[User:Tom (LT)|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:Tom (LT)|talk]]) 23:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::A one-off report should be doable once it is ready. [[User:Harej|Harej]] ([[User talk:Harej|talk]]) 18:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Sex is not determined by gametes produced == |
== Sex is not determined by gametes produced == |
||
Revision as of 02:25, 13 December 2023
| WikiProject Anatomy | ||||||
 Main page |
 Discussion |
 Things To Do |
 Tools |
 Article alerts |
 Manual of Style |
 Resources |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Bad photos
I and @Claes Lindhardt have been working on the List of skeletal muscles of the human body and it has become clear that several of the muscles have "reused" images or are just scans of Gray's Anatomy 20th edition that do not really explain what the muscle is. For example, just for the head muscles:
- Orbicularis oculi muscle - does not show parts
- Depressor supercilii muscle - just reuses obicularis oculi image
- Temporoparietalis muscle - image but muscle is not even labeled
- Levator labii superioris alaeque nasi muscle - labelled under a different name and the arrow is not even pointing at the right muscle
- Transverse muscle of the chin - identical pictures to Depressor anguli oris muscle
- Thyroarytenoid muscle - doesn't label parts
I'm not really an illustrator, so what is the best way to go about fixing these? Mathnerd314159 (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Articularis genus muscle - ist a picture of a bone with the muscle attachment rather then the muscle itself
- Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalene_muscles - have all the scalenus muscles except the minimus Claes Lindhardt (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interspinales_muscles have no picture yet Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcostalis_muscle also do not have a picture yet Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccygeus_muscle , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levator_ani also seems to be using the same primary pictures. There is a lot of articles using the same picture where both muscles are likely visable but not marked. This might not be a major issue, but it would be very neat to also have resolved. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- puboperinealis, pterygoideus proprius, Muscle of terminal notch, ceratocricoideus and puboprostaticus (males) / pubovaginalis (females) are also still missing pictures Claes Lindhardt (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Same goes for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triceps and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articularis_cubiti_muscle Claes Lindhardt (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Mathnerd314159 and Claes Lindhardt, images are super important to understanding anatomy so your work is appreciated :). When looking for images I generally start by hunting around in Wikicommons, because we can easily include those images (link here: [1]). Sometimes for less well known structures, they're not placed in the correct category on Wikicommons, so I have to be sneaky and look at anatomical images of things that area close by or of the area in general, with a hope that the structure will be labelled there. Hope that helps, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Same goes for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triceps and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articularis_cubiti_muscle Claes Lindhardt (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- puboperinealis, pterygoideus proprius, Muscle of terminal notch, ceratocricoideus and puboprostaticus (males) / pubovaginalis (females) are also still missing pictures Claes Lindhardt (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccygeus_muscle , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levator_ani also seems to be using the same primary pictures. There is a lot of articles using the same picture where both muscles are likely visable but not marked. This might not be a major issue, but it would be very neat to also have resolved. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcostalis_muscle also do not have a picture yet Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interspinales_muscles have no picture yet Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalene_muscles - have all the scalenus muscles except the minimus Claes Lindhardt (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
General problem with anatomy pictures
Wikipedia has a widespread general problem with many of its images showing aspects of gross anatomy, images which are featured on article pages on such topics: All too often, those pictures, even if they show some view that includes the structure that is the topic of the article, do not label the structure in question, or label it using a different name.
The problem is, if you do not already know the topic of the article, then you can't necessarily identify the structure in question in the picture even if it's technically (also) depicted in there. Of course, if you already know all about the structure, then you have no problem seeing it in the picture; it's right there. Alas, if you don't already know, then you can't! Ironically, readers who already know all about the structure don't really need to consult Wikipedia articles on it, so they're not even the primary audience.
This is an all-too-common human problem, where bad teachers with poor self-awareness or perhaps a poorly developed theory of mind do not seem to realise that what they know is not what everybody else knows. More empathy is required here – as are better labels. Put yourself in the reader's shoes: What do they know? Can they tell what they're looking at? Making up for such deficiencies in the image caption is better than nothing but also relatively insufficient. Just as an example of this problem (that's not fixed as of this writing): The Gerdy's tubercle article features an image, and while you could technically argue that what's shown in the picture includes Gerdy's tubercle, really your best bet of seeing a picture that actually shows you Gerdy's tubercle and points it out to you is to just search Google Images instead. That's not to knock Gray's Anatomy woodcuts or other old images, but really, if you want to use such a picture to point out a structure, then you need to edit the picture and upload a copy in which what you're actually trying to show is clearly labelled.
—ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Sex is not determined by gametes produced
Please see Talk:Sex#Suggestion for Leading sentence and section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Blood-saliva barrier
Can you please give your opinion at Talk:Blood-saliva_barrier on whether a new article is needed for blood-saliva barrier (BSB)? Thak you in advance! --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
"Explaining the Human Body" videos
Hello! A public broadcaster from Germany, Deutsche Welle, just donated thirteen short English-language explainer videos about general physiology to Commons. You can find them at commons:Category:Creative Commons videos by Deutsche Welle. Do you think any of them could be used in an article? Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)