Talk:Human anatomy

Definition suggestions

I think "medical gross anatomy" should be added in the definition of human anatomy. The name Gross is used so often to refer to Human anatomy that I think it is worth being redundant. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 15:36, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Movement

Along with orientation, I think of anatomical movements - essential for understanding of muscular skeletal anatomy. Should we include a link to the basic anatomical movements from this article? I think yes. Do you think they should be included in this article? I think no, but I like long articles, so I wouldn't mind seeing it added. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 18:39, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Things I added for fun that were then deleted by David

These things may have not been the best fit for this article but they were fun facts, I thought

From Mnemonic

BCS - Branches of aorta

• Bowl - brachiocephalic artery
• Championship - left common carotid artery
• Series - left subclavian artery

Davide said these should go in a different article, he's probably correct. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:02, 17 February 2007 (CST)

From definition

I added words to be incorporated, Gross Anatomy, Macroanatomy, Microanatomy.

These words are covered in the parent article Anatomy, says David on my user talk page. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:02, 17 February 2007 (CST)

I have added a section including those, as you suggest. David Hume 18:58, 17 February 2007 (CST)

"parent article"

I think we can improve the way we have the link to the main anatomy article but I can't think of the wording yet. looking for input. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:06, 17 February 2007 (CST)

I like your addition of the word article. It does make it clearer and all in all it doesn't look too intrusive on the page David Hume 18:55, 17 February 2007 (CST)

The order of reference books

Netter is by far the most superior atlas written in my mind and I'm going to vote that it gets the number 1 spot. I would argue that Rohen Color atlas is also a superior atlas and I vote it also be considered for a higher rank on the reference book section. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:17, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Order them however you like, Tom. Do what you think is best. My suggestion would be to order them by complexity: introductory, intermediate, and comprehensive; alotting stars, perhaps, to indicate quality - though all books listed should be ones widely used at universities and colleges because they are considered the best and worth at least 4/5 stars. David Hume 19:56, 17 February 2007 (CST)

I don't have time to do this now - also, I only have the books I listed, but I can find the rest at the library later. I like your idea of breaking them up by difficulty. We could also break them up by type of book - text, atlas, etc. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 20:01, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Anatomy Workgroup?

I don't think we are big enough to have an anatomy workgroup at this point. Honestly, I'd like to keep the workgroups to a minimum. WP has failed to classify articles in general categories and has gotten too specific. This makes doing a category related changes : See http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium_Pilot:Biology_Workgroup and http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Category%3ABiology_Workgroup impossible. Maybe this should move to the forums for more consideration by all. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 18:43, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Attention please writers in Anatomy

It seems this article has NO A PRIORI DEFINITION. May I ask the responsible editor(s) and authour(s) to come to an understanding to how and why this article should be formulated before doing any serious editing? This TALK PAGE is the DEFACTO PLACE to discuss all matters of the article.

If NO agreement can de devised and or constructed I will contact one of the health science or biology edt=itors and ask him or her to oversee the progress here. A reminder stays: ALL PROJECTS are COLLABORATIVE. Robert Tito | Talk 18:36, 17 February 2007 (CST)

at first glance the human anatomy seems more a topic belonging health_sciences than biology. Second, maybe you like long articles, maybe others do not. You need to come to an agreement, based upon scholarly arguments not sentiments. If in a later stage it seems nice to have a link to Biology because of general anatomy, that link can be made at that moment in time. To start with a non-existing link seems not needed. No matter how big or small a group is, the responsibility of the content still belongs to an editor with a speciality in that specific topic. So appropriate it would be to include an editor in a group no matter its size. Robert Tito | Talk 18:59, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Firstly this page deals with human anatomy, not anatomy in general and is the parent article to this page. Anatomy is defined there. As to why there should be articles on morphology, anatomy, human anatomy, the human skeletal system, etc. I thought that would be obvious. I'm not at all sure what you are getting at and why all the shouting. Second, long articles? What do you call long?

What non-existing link? There is a link to anatomy on the biology page and one from there to human anatomy. I am currently trying to have morphology interposed between biology and anatomy for reasons stated on the biology discussion page. This would create a flow from biology > morphology > anatomy > human anatomy > systems of the human body e.g. the skeletal system > e.g. Skull > e.g. bones of the skull, etc. - all nicely linked in a logical way that would prevent any one page from getting too large. A page can't stand in isolation. It may or may not have children but it has to have a parent. And it can more than one parent too. There's no reason a "Health Sciences" page can't link to it as well.

What brought all this on anyway? David Hume 19:47, 17 February 2007 (CST)