Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

We list suggested sections for disease and medication related article. Should we list suggested sections for article related to pathogens (viruses, bacteria, parasites, etc.)? Some could include:

• Classification
• Structure
• Genome
• Tropism
• Replication cycle
• Genetic variability
• Clinical syndrome ( just a brief paragraph or two)
• History

Comments? Have posted a note over at

This is complicated.

Classification: The classification of more than a few pathogens has a annoying habit of changing. Think of

E coli. Or of the reduction in Salmonella species. That's before the problems arise with the fungi and their double genus name. And as to the classification of protozoa - particularly the higher order of classification there are several existing competing schemes. The viruses are probable fairly stable thanks to the work of the ICTV

's work.

Genome: The genome of many of important pathogens has yet to be sequenced.

Genetic variability. The extent to which this is known depends entirely on the number of people studying the organism in question. The variability of HIV is well known: but that of (say) Acanthamoeba much less so. Yet both avoid the same immune system.

Replication cycle: This may be better in the higher classification section. There are exceptions: Hepatitis C is the only well studied example in its genus.

Tissue trophism: An interesting idea. Sadly a huge number of pathogens don't show much tissue trophism. All the bacteria cause disease in any organ they can access. Ophthalmitis due to a foreign body can be due to almost any known - and some unknown bacteria. Invasive parasites like bacteria go anywhere they can access. Some fungi do show a trophism - the dermatophytes spring to mind - but in the immunosupressed that rule does not apply. Viruses alone of the major pathogens do show some evidence of tissue trophism but this seems to be due to their requirements for replication. But even then their trophism may be (and often is) less than one might initially expect.

History: always worth including. Mind you some of the older refs can be very difficult to track down particularly with the parasites.

Overall the idea is good but I'm not convinced that a fixed format would work or might even be a good idea. These formats can be a bit proscriptive and the an attempt at including material that doesn't fit such a predefined format might well start an edit war which is probably best avoided where possible. If it came to a vote on this I for one would say no for the reasons given above. DrMicro (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. For what it's worth, I don't think that this is the best breakdown that Wikipedia could have due to reasons including those already mentioned. The logic behind this and the order of sections should be considered; frankly, I think that history should be towards the front end of an article, as is often the case with articles, and that some of the sections that have been mentioned such as genome and genetic variability could perhaps be contained in one section only. The terms "tropism" and "clinical syndrome" are much too medical and/or specific; what of "pathogenesis" and "pathology"? I mightn't be making too much sense; I'm sleep-deprived at the moment, so forgive me for that. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The older I get the more I become a fan of history also, both in science and medicine. Probably that's an age-related phenomenon. But from my point of view, Wikipedia (which by and large is written by males in their twenties) gives very short shrift to history.

In the articles on chemical elements, for example, I've waged a lonely war (sometimes successful, other times not) to keep the history sections from being put dead last, as per official recommendation of the chem elements task force (much like the above). But I think that often it's quite difficult to understand a thing unless there is at least cursory attention paid to how we got to this understanding. How do we understand "here" without some idea of how we got here? And is there nothing to learn about where we might be going, by examining how we arrived?

To me, it's fairly natural to start with a short history section right after the introduction/lede of nearly any subject. How else to get your bearings? "Start at the beginning" usually has to do with chronology. One can leave detailed history till last, or hive it off in a subarticle as per

WP:SS

. But some historical discussion needs to come before dead-last.

Take a look at the article on the United States, for example, which is probably the most widely-read general article on en.wiki. After the introduction, there's etymology, then history. That would do well for just about anything. SBHarris 22:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've spaced your comment a wee bit. I hope no one minds. Cheers.

My comment on this is that, by and large, I find myself agreeing with you, though history, in the present, isn't of utmost relevance. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Support for history sections early on in many types of articles! --Hordaland (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I am easy either way. Mainly wish to see consistency across this subject area. No strong feeling on what that consistency should be.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." [1] I don't really see why this all needs to be in exactly the same format for all. Older topics will naturally have more history than younger topics. And occasionally history is not terribly important, or even detracts if the field has been full of mistaken ideas. So put it farther up than last-place (usually) but season-as-needed on a topic-by-topic basis. Goodness, this is just like arguing over how many illustrations we should have, or even how long articles should be. Which is to say, it's a silly argument that need not happen. Need it? Clearly as regards length, there's some kind of maximum that triggers

I guess the key here is if this is a foolish idea or not. Many encyclopedia's have guidelines regarding the ordering of sections. Not only do these make it easier to look content up but also easier to edit. Remember we have only had consistency in spelling in the English language for a few hundred years and most would consider this (and dictionaries) a good thing. Why reinvent the wheel for every article we write.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I can only reply that at some (low) level standardization is a good thing, like whether or not your nuts and bolts are metric, and at some other level it isn't, like whether or not we all have to drive the exact same model cars made of those metric gizmos, with all the parts in those cars in the same places. What is a WP article most like, a nut and bolt or a car? Consistency is helpful when it's helpful, but consistency-for-the-sake-of-consistency reminds me of ritual and OCD and the assertion that WP is probably written by nerds with a hint of Asperger's who will start rocking and flapping and screaming if they don't find the history section in the we-all-agreed-to-be proper place.

I learned about these problems in part by editing chemical element articles, and noticing what I had to do with the biology sections. It was quite different for C, H, O and N than it was for

WP:IAR for the sake of quality. See also discussion here and here SBHarris

02:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The section on suggested sections already says that they are suggestions, not hard-and-fast rules to be mindlessly followed. I think we an make a suggestion for a typical article without worrying too much about mindless implementations when there is a good reason to diverge from the typical situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; I've read through comments since my own but I'm not understanding all of them.

As for these suggested sections, which are what they are, but approximate guides, it would be unwise if they were overly prescriptive and not for some pragmatic purpose.

All right, so generally what sections currently appear in pathogen-related articles? What sections are "worth" having? In what order, if any, should these sections be listed? --Qwerty Binary (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, before we can answer that question, we have to figure out what is a pathogen-related article, because we actually have two significant types: the kind of article that has to cover both pathogen and disease, and the kind of article that covers just the pathogen, because there is a separate article for the disease it produces. I think that the goal here is to produce a list of suggested topics (in some reasonably sensible order) for the just-the-pathogen articles, but perhaps someone with a better familiarity with the articles could confirm that this makes sense to them, too, because if 90% of the articles have to cover both, then we should probably provide advice for the "hybrid" article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I for one am all in favour of separating the pathogens from the disease. For many diseases there are many pathogens: for many pathogens there are many diseases. Since creating pathogen-disease pages leads to the Cartesian product problem this does not seem sensible. Concerning "advice" - the use of such terms concerns me. Such "advice" can rapidly suffer from 'mission creep' and become The One True Way which IMHO is a tad against the spirit of WP. There is also the problem which was commented on above - "You just can't standardize what nature makes different."

Standardized formats work reasonably well for disease articles. Medical textbooks have a generally agreed format for these which WP more or less follows. In contrast even a passing familiarity with the literature on pathogens would aquaint anyone with the fact that there is NO standard format for the discussion of what is known and unknown about an organism. Some organisms have books devoted to them: others have barely a mention. Given the disparities in the available knowledge concerning these organisms I would strongly advise against this idea. DrMicro (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a number of disease pathogen pairs of article including:

• HIV and HIV/AIDS

• Hepatitis C virus and Hepatitis C

• Louse and Pediculosis

This textbook does order the content somewhat Regenmortel, edited by Brian Mahy, Marc Van (2009). Desk encyclopedia of human and medical virology. London: Academic.

I for one prefer the separation of the clinical disease from the pathogen. Think of (say) Staphylococcus aureus. This particular pathogen can cause quite a number of diseases. There are a number of diseases that are believed to be caused by a single pathogen for these a single page may be a good idea. However this assumption may be wrong: Babesiosis was thought to be due to infection with Babesia. It now has emerged that Babesia microti is not a member of the genus Babesia but instead requires a new genus as it has a number of characteristics (including a circular mitochondrial genome) that seperate it from the Babesia genus. As a suggestion for 'future proofing' a separation of pathogen and disease is to be recommended.

A second reason for recommending a separation is that quite a number of pathogens also cause disease in animals. The disease in animals may be similar to or quite different from that in humans.

Concerning suggestions for 'ordering' given the obvious overlap with veterinary medicine, botany, genetics, microbiology, biochemistry, molecular biology and other areas it seems sensible (to me anyway) that consultation on such topics should also be sought on the discussion fora for these areas also. WP is not after all merely a textbook of medical virology. DrMicro (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course there are more complex pathogen life cycles too, which complicate pairings, such as for

Strep A. As a general rule, I'd suggest we keep agent and disease articles seperate but linked, unless the agent is known to only cause one disease and to be the only cause of that disease. LeadSongDog come howl!

19:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree further input is good.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"[u]nless the agent is known to only cause one disease and to be the only cause of that disease." In the great scheme of things assuming 'one pathogen == one disease' is a rare occurrence. If there is one firm recommendation I would make it is to keep these separate. There may be some overlap using two pages but knowing what I do about the rate of discovery of new associations the risk of having to do entire rewrites if only a single page is used is considerable. For example there are some serious suggestions doing the rounds that at least some cases of colon cancer are caused by a transmissible agent. This possibility remains only theoretical at present. The amount of information on colon cancer is already HUGE. If a transmissible agent does cause at least some of these cases then vast amounts of data on it are likely to be generated extremely rapidly. A single page covering both the disease and the pathogen (assuming there is one) is likely to become enormous placing an unnecessary load on the WP servers. Multiple smaller pages - within reason - are likely to place a smaller load on the servers. DrMicro (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think nearly everyone is in agreement that articles on pathogens and diseases should be keep separate. We have a recommended ordering of sections for disease related articles. Should we consider a recommended ordering / possible sections for pathogen related articles.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth I would suggest that there be no special distinction made for pathogen related disease material. Consider the 'fun' it will be rewriting hepatitis, pneunonia, endocarditis, dengue fever not to mention a host of others if 'new and improved' sections are introduced. My suggestions are as before: (1) separate the disease from the pathogen (this leaves it open for non medical diseases caused by the same pathogen) (2) leave the disease related material under the existing medicine style (3) leave the pathogens themselves under the auspices of the broad heading of 'microbiology'. The 'microbiology' projects (here I include bacteriology, virology, protists, parasites, fungi and algae as all these cause disease in humans) have very different guidance - where it exists - as to recommended section headings. That is even before the other projects - biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, tree of life and others - are even considered. All these projects may have views on this matter. DrMicro (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a consideration, even under that schema, that certain diseases will need to discuss one or many pathogens, and certain pathogens will need to discuss one or many diseases. For example HHV 6 seems to be implicated or involved in a number of diseases. Therefore (and quite rightly) a full separation of pathogen form disease cannot be achieved. And to make things more complex, there are, of course, vectors, themselves sometimes subject to or causing disease, helper viruses, symbionts and so on. Rich Farmbrough, 23:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

I made 3 changes to the suggested section headings where I quoted

Presumably the relevant item is not in HEAD, but above it: "Titles should normally be nouns or noun phrases: Early life, not In early life." I'm not sure that this item is actually meant to apply to section headings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No. The section states:

The provisions in Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well (for example, headings are in sentence case, not title case). The following points apply specifically to section headings:

*Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated.

It patently applies to section headings.Curb Chain (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Update

This set of changes is what this is about.

The question of whether was meant to be applied to ==Section headings== was discussed at WT:MOS. The discussion can be read in the archives. The overall feeling was that this particular rule at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles was not meant to be applied to section headings.

As a result of this, I propose that we go back to the previous version, since it makes more sense. Headache#Children (What does this mean? Children are headaches? They cause headaches?) or Fever#Pregnancy makes less sense that Headache#In children or Fever#During pregnancy. Does anyone object? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent - no concerns. -- Scray (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

ABA is a new term for Behavior modification.

See here: [2].

It states as follows: "A New Science? [section] Perhaps there is a tendency to draw pejorative contrasts between PBS and ABA in order to bolster claims about the status of PBS as a new and distinct science or discipline (e.g., Bambara et al., 1994; E. Carr, 1997; E. Carr et al., 2002; Knoster et al., 2003; Sisson, 1992). There may be disagreement among PBS leaders on this point. On the one hand, for example, Horner (2000) stated that 'Positive behavior support is not a new approach. … [It is] the application of behavior analysis to the social problems created by such behaviors as self-injury' (p. 97). He further stated, 'There is no difference in theory or science between positive behavior support and behavior modification. These are the same approach with different names. If any difference exists, it is in the acceptance [by PBS] of much larger outcomes and the need to deliver the global technology that will deliver these outcomes' (p. 99). Other writers have referred to PBS as an 'extension' of applied behavior analysis (e.g., Turnbull et al., 2002, p. 377).

I wanted to put the article information describing

Cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT, a form of behavior/psychotherapy) is a "behavior modification program". And, while it was being developed, it was called "Cognitive-behavior modification" yet it is denied that CBT is behavior analytical. What should we do to address these issues as we merge these articles into one? ATC ^{. Talk}

22:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• new info on my talk, and
• the previous discussion at WT:MED

I had the pleasure of mentoring ATC when she was a brand new and struggling editor; she is a good faith editor attempting to understand under what name to place text about behavior mod, and I'm afraid I'm not the most qualified to answer. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added "other animals" to our anatomy sections to be similar to diseases.

And I combined the

talk

) 05:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted myself on the Location and structure listing, though, for the reasons stated in that edit summary. It seems more important for the

talk

) 05:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

A shortcut to

That's a great idea. I'll add it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a good idea. Here is the link that WhatamIdoing made -

WP:MEDORDER. Blue Rasberry (talk)

20:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheers :) kashmiri ^TALK 22:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Right now is a long list of random recommendations, that gets longer over time. Maybe recommendations could be somehow reordered into subsections of related content. --Garrondo (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Be bold! WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I second this. You are entirely welcome. You understand WikiProject Medicine's audience and the typical problems which people face when learning to edit health articles. Whatever you recommend will be as insightful as any modifications that anyone can make. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping somebody went for it instead of me... Nevertheless I have given it a fast try reordering into subsections the random comments and creating some introductory sentences for some of the subsections. --Garrondo (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There was a big discussion at WT:MED recently about a user who would like to "correct" the Latin grammar in our English articles and their titles. The overall consensus was against him, because English does not follow the Latin rules of declining nouns. I have added this:

Because we are writing in English, terms that originated in Latin, Greek, German, or another foreign language are not declined as if the sentence were written in that language.

to record that consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the consensus was that we follow what spelling the majority of sources are using, rather than anything that specific... Lesion (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Scray has made that improvement. This was also discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience#Nucleus raphe versus nucleus raphes with the conclusion to use the terms as they appear in the English literature, regardless of what the "proper" Latin would be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As I am that particular user...An important difference between the discussion regarding nucleus raphes versus "nucleus raphe and the curremt discussion I have with WhatamIdoing about nucleus tractus solitarii versus nucleus tractus solitarius, is that a large majority of the sources used the incorrect form nucleus raphe according to the number of hits on Pubmed, while smaller differences exist between nucleus tractus solitarii and nucleus tractus solitarius'". I still think that Latin grammar and the recommendations of official lists like the

Wimpus (talk) —Preceding undated

comment added 21:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Knowledge of Latin is not a prerequisite for editing the encyclopedia. We simply need to represent common usage in reliable sources. If there are specific instances where common usage is not represented by an article, that should be discussed at the Talk page there (with, if desired, a notice at

WT:MED to draw a broader group of editors interested in medically-related articles). For this page (regarding MEDMOS), the relevant principle - that common usage in reliable sources trumps linguistics every time - needed to be explicit, and it is now. -- Scray (talk

) 00:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need for more criteria. The naming conventions in the MEDMOS are already clear on the issue: follow what the majority of recent high quality medical sources are saying, if that is disputed, try to seek an international standard from sources like ICD-10. Like I said before Wimpus, no-one would object to you adding a sourced section about why a commonly used phrase or term is technically incorrect. This would probably follow the etymology. Lesion (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if it is true the line added to MEDMOS probably further clarifies the specific issue. I think it is a good idea to have it. --Garrondo (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The vcite templates are covered quite extensively here, yet they are rarely used. I just checked, and vcite journal is used in less than 200 of all wikipedia articles. Although they might be a viable option for editors, I think it is better to remove all text about them here as it makes things more complicated and confusing rather than clear. Any objections if I remove that part? --WS (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Best to keep it in ... they were used, for example, in autism (FA) articles (by User:Eubulides) because they shorten the load time on articles with extremely long/numerous citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that most of the performance issues have been resolved since, see

Module_talk:Citation/CS1/Updates. --WS (talk

) 14:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just did (a rather unscientific test) using preview changes on editing

autism after using both the vcite and the cite template for all refs, and using cite actually seems faster now (loading the full article in 11.1 vs 13.5 seconds). --WS (talk

) 14:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If the speed issues have been fixed than yes KISS.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

These guidelines appear to give different advice. Should they be standardized in terms of order and wording of headings? Lesion (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph beginning "The end of this article . . . " because the wording was totally confusing and there is no reason to keep piling on advice to a writer or editor if he or she has to go elsewhere to read it.

I have a suggestion concerning collapsible galleries of images which by some may be deemed as very graphic or which retract from the average users ability to read an article, especially medical articles which can be considered rough by a large group of non medical professionals.

Controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article.

This I interpret as stating that images that convey the subject matter in a way that is comprehensible without disgusting the curious user is the best choice. This in no way means that these images always can explain all aspects of the article. So as not to scare off the regular reader pages such as Anencephaly may profit from a collapsible image gallery, such as:

This removes risk of censorship while at the same time keeping the possibility for vulnerable users to avoid seeing the images, while being able to take part of the textual information. This may apply to quite a few medical articles. Common practice at most European and American medical schools is to have ethical discussions and to offer counseling for students before entering difficult subjects such as anatomy and pathology. A naïve user stumbling upon these subjects does not have the support given to many medical and dentist etc. students, and as such may be deterred from Wikipedia after seeing these images.

The suggestion also respects already present:

Shock value: Some images of medical conditions or procedures disturb some readers, e.g., because of visible deformities or the presence of blood. Potentially disturbing images should be not be used for their shock value, for decoration, or merely to add an image. A detailed caption that identifies specific features may simultaneously increase the educational value of the image and reduce the likelihood of disturbing readers. Placement in a highly relevant section, rather than in the introduction, is also likely to reduce the shock value to readers. Wikipedia:Offensive material offers additional advice.

--

CFCF (talk

) 23:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No disclaimers in articles. Also, your proposed interpretation of POLA has been argued, unsuccessfully, in the past. There is nothing astonishing about the use of examples of Anencephaly in that article. Likewise, such images are not used for shock value, so that line of reasoning is similarly invalid. Resolute

23:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking through images I have found quite suitable images that do not cause such a strong reaction among readers. There is the clear possibility of completely removing the concerned images from Wikipedia and only hosting them on the commons, but I feel this would retract too much from the article - and goes against

WP:NOTCENSORED

.

Your own judgement says that the images are not astonishing, but the entire Talk:Anencephaly page mentions almost nothing but objections to the images as being of questionable value.

No disclaimers in articles is not either a rule set in stone as per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

etc. etc.

I would like to challenge the rule, and believe I have a strong case in doing so.

CFCF (talk

) 00:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

And you are more than welcome to do so, though the proper forum to challenge something like

WP:NDA would be a village pump, not here. I can predict, however, that it is unlikely to gain community support. Particularly given slippery slope implications. Resolute

00:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the hiding of images. We do not hide the

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Placing these images in collapsible galleries is quite different than the

Rorschach ink blots

. The reasoning against censorship on Wikipedia is that we do not remove things certain cultures or religions etc. etc. may find insulting.

The case for hiding medical (especially autopsy and dissection images) is quite different. The response against these images is nearly universal, and the disgust response does not follow culture etc. in the same way. I have written a short argument for the suggestion:

--

CFCF (talk

) 10:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I wish to make a case for the use of collapsible galleries or images on Wikipedia for use in articles of medical nature, especially that of images showing faces, children, excessive blood and death in a life-like photographic fashion - of which images under Anencephaly#Signs and symptoms do (these images have been heavily debated on said articles talk page). This does not apply to journalistic or artistic images which are not in the same way meant to convey raw medical imagery, but instead emotional content in a way that is meaningful to the general public.

A summary of arguments for allowing collapsible galleries is:

• 1.

Strictly descriptive medical images are often without value for the general public. The general public may not be capable of understanding the full implication behind such images. A user researching Gluteus maximus is most likely not interested in imagery concerning dissections of the gluteus maximus. A collapsible gallery may prevent the need for a new article Dissection of gluteus maximus. While this clearly applies to many images on Wikipedia, such as a great many images in articles concerning physics and mathematics the following points are not at play in these cases:

• 2.

Pathology is at large considered a field of medicine involving difficult imagery and scenes which the general public may find objectionable in a manner which undermines amassing knowledge in the subject.

• 3.

Even pathologists find certain forms of imagery and certain cases very distressing even after years of practice in normal pathology. For example pediatric pathology is performed at select universities by only certain practitioners because it is considered too emotionally distressing for the average pathologist. The average Wikipedia user can most likely be deemed less hardened by experience than the average pathologist who needs first 5-6 years of medical school, after which at least 5 years of pathological training is undergone.

• 4.

Anatomy is at large considered a science concerning subjects which are hard to access without proper prerequisite knowledge. As opposed to pathology, anatomical subjects are often embalmed and may show signs of rot, mildue and other decaying apart from normal pathological findings. Anatomical subjects are also due to embalming discolored which may make them with less obvious value in explaining the subject than the much more prolific drawn images. Muscles are not always shown in the same detail as most images. Again collapsible galleries would allow these images without the need of a new article solely on dissections.

• 5.

Dissections for medical students are normally preceded by ethical discussion as well as the availability of counseling. This is not readily available for a curious Wikipedia user stumbling far into unknown terrain.

• 6.

Otherwise objectionable content may be very useful for a medical professional, not so much so for non-professionals. Dissection images do not by large give any meaningful help on anatomical articles for understanding of the subject matter. A large argument for dissections is normally the 3D advantage they give, this is absent in images. They may on the other hand give meaningful content to the medical professional or the anatomist who consults the article. It may be very difficult to find images on Wikimedia commons in the same way that they can be presented under a closed collapsible gallery of images.

• 6.

There is a very clear distinction of what is an image with sole purpose of conveying medical knowledge and what is not. Guidelines proposed can dismantle the slippery slope argument and may be: Broad and clear as to cover many cases so as to offer large room to display images without a collapsible gallery but still allowing for the covering of the most gruesome images. Examples of guidelines, of which several or all may need to be fulfilled can be:

These are merely proposed criteria

The image is not deemed to have artistic or journalistic value - as such is only of value showing a medical concept.

The image is not deemed to be relevant to a non-professional member of the general public.

The image contains deformed or damaged faces or other recognizable normally visible body parts, children and excessive blood or dead individuals.

The image is a photograph.

Non-photographic images are unable to convey the subject matter in a manner sufficient for the general public.

These guidelines quite clearly discount images not normally seen as very objectionable such as those of the Heart.

• 7.

Wikipedia’s aim to be a source of knowledge is furthered by the possibility of articles containing imagery which may be of utmost relevance but may still be objectionable as per

WP:NOTCENSORED

Shock value: Some images of medical conditions or procedures disturb some readers, e.g., because of visible deformities or the presence of blood. Potentially disturbing images should be not be used for their shock value, for decoration, or merely to add an image. A detailed caption that identifies specific features may simultaneously increase the educational value of the image and reduce the likelihood of disturbing readers. Placement in a highly relevant section, rather than in the introduction, is also likely to reduce the shock value to readers. Wikipedia:Offensive material offers additional advice.

This allows for a broader availability of these images by not tempting the average user to remove them from articles instead of moving them to an appropriate section.

• 8

The suggestion addresses the apparent issue of Help:Options to hide an image, where the user is asked to have access to the knowledge of how to hide images before using Wikipedia. This suggestion would simplify new users getting to grips with medical articles on Wikipedia, and may very well serve to increase contributions to this part of Wikipedia.

I would like to point out that this suggestion has the goal of increasing the availability of medical images on Wikipedia, and not in making them less available. It would also alleviate the need to make individual dissection articles for every subject.

--
CFCF (talk
) 10:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Try a RfC.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose-- for 2 general reasons:
  • Ineffective-- Human nature being what it is, when presented with a button which says "click to show something shocking" (or words to that effect), what are most people going to do? Either images are suitable for an encyclopedia article or they are not. I think it is over-complication to bring in degrees of image suitability.
  • Work involved-- This proposal potentially represents a lot of work, precious editor time which could be much more better spent building the encyclopedia. Lesion (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
    • What about the work involved creating dissection articles, I can tell you that is more than what is necessary to add images under the correct section.
    • And for the ineffective claim, it may be ineffective the first time a user sees the button. If the user is shocked he/she could simply avoid it in the future, instead of being bombarded with more such images.
      CFCF (talk
      ) 11:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose And who gets to decide what content is hidden and what content is not hidden? We have a long practice of not hiding content in collapsible boxes.
  talk · contribs · email
  ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose this impacts on readability and the conciseness of articles. If something isn't included as visible it shouldn't be included. An alternative that already exists is the feature that allows links to images stored on commons.
  talk
  ) 04:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose -
  accessible to have the loading of large images delayed until the page text is fully loaded (possible exemption for lede section images). That, though, is not the thrust of this discussion. LeadSongDog come howl!
  14:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment-- so far everyone who has commented is linked with WPMED. Suggest to CFCF that it might be good to get some other opinions? (without
  WP:CANVASS) Lesion (talk
  ) 14:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no clue as to how I can do that, I don't suppose I could just randomly pick out active editors and write on their talk pages. Need help to move the discussion forward.

CFCF (talk

) 13:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I see proposals advertised on top of the watchlist. That might draw a more representative slice of wikipedia users. Not sure where you apply to get a message posted like that however. Lesion (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images#Final decision is of relevance here, as is [7]. Maralia (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Closed Seems to me that there is consensus that this should not be implemented, and the discussion is taking up to much of my time for me to push it further.
  CFCF (talk
  ) 13:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. I've just looked at CITEMED for the first time in eons, and it is so impenetrable that I don't see how anything we add might even be noticed. We are repeating way too much info here that should be covered elsewhere. But, yes, I agree with you generally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Amended, looked at the page (that is now more readable), compared it to

WP:CITEHOW, added a post below (which I now see has already been stated by WAID as well). SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 15:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Ok, I took a Bold stab at restructuring that section. See if it makes any more sense now. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I tired. Been fighting the student editing mess all day. Will not be able to make any sense of it now. If I forget in the next few days, please ping me again? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Basically, we can't do that. It would directly contradict the main guideline at

WP:CITE. However, we could "encourage" it or "suggest" it or even say that everyone else is doing it (which might be more effective than even a direct order). WhatamIdoing (talk

) 18:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I support Lead's suggestion. We need checking refs to be easy. This is one of the way

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This edit was more recommendation than mandate.

Wikipedia:CITE#Links_and_ID_numbers says "A citation ideally includes a link or ID number to help editors locate the source....", so it's not like we're making it up ab initio ourselves. These are, after all, articles on medicine, not Pikachu. There's a bit more at stake in getting them right. LeadSongDog come howl!

19:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've got no problem with suggesting it. We just can't set it as anything like a requirement (and certainly not for GA, because citation formatting is not even mentioned in the criteria, and therefore cannot be considered). Our advice here must conform to CITE's decision to permit the main authors to create whatever citation system they want, including one that does not include links to anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was a merry chase! Looking at

wp:WIAGA lead me to fixing some problems here which provide a wonderful illustration of why these identifiers are needed! Anyhow, the point of it is that a misidentified source can't verify anything. At best it wastes a reviewers time, while at worst it creates false security that the statement is supported. If verification of sources isn't in GAC now, it ought to be. LeadSongDog come howl!

21:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

A GA reviewer is required to verify that the cited source supports the text. However, there are no requirements for the formatting of the citation, beyond the purely practical one: if the reviewer can't figure out what the source is, then the reviewer is unable to verify that the cited source contains that material. So "Red cookbook on the third shelf in my kitchen" is invalid in GA terms, but "Alice Expert's Chemistry for Cooking" is fine as far as GA is concerned, even though the reviewer might have to go to the trouble of pasting that information into a search engine or even going to a library to find the source. GA criteria are not written with the reviewer's personal convenience in mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In an alternate universe where we had an unlimited supply of reviewers, that might matter, but in this one, a difficult review simply may not be done or may take a long time to complete. Asking them to seek out all the editions of Chemistry for Cooking and read them cover to cover in search for something that is backed by a rough citation is simply rude to the reviewers, even if it does squeek past

wp:ATTR. I regard this as more than that though, sloppy citation of med content is a serious business. Like it or not, there are real-life health consequences to letting bogus content through, given the number of hucksters, woo-pushers, and vaccination fearmongers that we have to deal with. LeadSongDog come howl!

21:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that a practicality-minded reviewer, if faced with dozens of editions or the necessity of reading them cover to cover to see whether some statement is contained in it, would simply say that he was unable to figure out which of the dozens of editions is the source that is actually being cited. Since many books have only one edition, it is not unreasonable to expect the reviewer to make an effort to see whether that's enough. If it's not, then he can refuse to list the article over it.

And the fact remains that we're talking about what is and isn't in the GA criteria, not about what's a good idea. That's a highly specialized process with very specific rules. There are many things that are not listed in the GA criteria that I'd like to see articles conform to, even if they have no aspirations to GA status, let alone to FA (where perfection in citations is ultimately required). The main MOS page and the external links guideline spring to mind, for example: a reviewer may not fail a GA nom over non-conformance to those guidelines, even though nobody approves of bad formatting and spammy links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• I am not sure about forcing GA reviewers to do anything but I would support this being explicitly stated here. If any GA reviewer wanted to suggest that someone format their citations in that way at the suggestion of the community maintaining this page then I would not expect that anyone would challenge them as unreasonable. It is an entirely reasonable guideline for any citation, but for medicine, I see no reason not to emphasize it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem. While this is a most helpful proposal and concept, whenever this guideline page gets ahead or out of sync with the general guideline pages, we've got a problem (of the type I've mentioned in other discussions, that affects the credibility and broad community acceptance of these pages). MEDMOS and MEDRS should how general guidelines apply to medical content and are used for medical content. The general guidelines at

• DOI and/or other identifiers are optional

If we want that to change for medical content, the discussion has to be held over there. We can request or suggest them here (and we should, I think we do?) but we can't go beyond general guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a discussion about multiple technical ways to generate nearly identical citations. This would likely only be relevant to people who use citation generation tools to put a single citation on multiple Wikipedia articles or who put citations on multiple Wikimedia projects. It would not likely have relevance to others!

There is perennial discussion in WikiProject Medicine and elsewhere about formatting citations. Many people think there are problems to having multiple practices for presenting citations. The variation is not intentional and some of it arises because of differences in tools for generating citations.

Contributors to medical articles often cite research papers which have DOIs or PMIDs. There are tools which allow persons to automatically generate a citation based on either one of these identifiers. The tools give different results which have different qualities. Because it is so likely that contributors to health articles will use a tool to generate their citations, there are more discussions about automated citations in medicine than elsewhere. What follows is a review of the differences between these and discussions of best practices.

An example citation template -

{{cite doi|10.1002.2F14651858.CD007209.pub2}}

Sampson, E. L.; Candy, B.; Jones, L. (2009). Sampson, Elizabeth L (ed.). "Enteral tube feeding for older people with advanced dementia". The Cochrane Library (2): CD007209.

The RefToolbar is a tool available through the

Citations from Citation bot

Citation bot completes citations for Template:Cite doi and Template:Cite PMID. When Citation bot does this, it makes a special template only for the doi of the paper and puts all citation information into that template. The idea is that when that citation is used, anyone can call that specific template for use only for that citation. Also, if the metadata in the original source is incorrect and thus presented incorrectly when it is called, any user may fix it in that citation template so that whenever anyone else uses it, it will be corrected.

It is conceivable that to make these templates give full citations, they could be substituted into the article. However, only experienced users would know how to do this, and doing this would eliminate the ease for anyone to fix citations if they wished.

A future advantage of having citations stored in templates is that eventually they will be migrated to Wikidata, so that if anyone needs to use the same citation in multiple Wikimedia projects then they can pull it from Wikidata rather than replicate it for each Wikimedia project. Example problems which this would fix are Wikimedia Commons' current inability to automatically generate citations from DOIs/PMIDs and the perceived superfluousness of establishing its own citation structure; and the problem of translating cited text between languages which is going to be problematic if citations do not have their formatting translated through transclusion.

Diberri's tool

Very cool tool with a lot of support. It is supposed to take identifiers and then turn them into citations. As of December 2013 it is tagged as nonfunctional but it still works. Using this tool requires the user to go to some external page, give an identifier, then get code to paste in return. Because of the extra steps this is more problematic than the RefToolbar's autofill or the Citation bot templates.

Manually created citations

Anyone may manually complete a citation if they like, for example by using Template:Cite journal. Whenever a DOI or ISBN exists this is never the best option because it is more work, more prone to user mistakes, and would likely have variations every time someone used it. Manually created citations are not preferred by anyone who knows other options unless they special reasons to use them.

Previous discussions related to this

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_22#Firefox_tool_to_format_PubMed_citations
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_27#Bots_editing_citations.2C_and_the_Diberri_format
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_36#Consistent_referencing_style
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_40#Ref_style

Issues to be considered

In wikitext, citations may appear as templates or as full citations. The major perspectives on this are probably as follows:

• For reasons of neatness and clarity, some people argue that any of these styles are better than the others. Most people probably say that full citations are better than citation templates, although some people prefer templates for their brevity.
• Different people find it simpler and easier to use one of these formats over the others
• The way to make a Citation bot template generate a full citation is with subst:, but this has the problems of removing the edit option from the template and only experienced users would think to use subst: so this is a process which is not obvious and would have to be explained
• Everyone would like for all automatic citation generators to give equivalent output. Right now perhaps the Diberri tool, Citation bot, and the Autofill function are all giving different output. Some other tools give still other output.
• Probably only citation templates can be used if there is any hope of doing translation or migrating content between Wikimedia projects, and I think most people at WikiProject Medicine hope for sharing of information in this way.

Cause for this post

Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

SG response

Before adding thoughts, let's address some statements in your preamble.

1. No idea what is meant by "full citation vs. citation templates" Most citation templates generate full citations; conversely, full citations don't require citation templates.
2. Diberri's took works, Boghog redid it.[8]
3. ON cite doi and cite pmid, in addition to the errors and inconsistencies they generate (Featured articles require citation consistency), you have not mentioned the editing difficulty they create. Because in edit mode they only reveal the PMID, one has to have another window open to determine if the source is primary or secondary, so editing around them when cleaning up primary sources is very difficult.
4. You have misstated what a manual citation format is in "Anyone may manually complete a citation if they like, for example by using Template:Cite journal". See Tourette syndrome for manual citations (because I refuse to be subjected to the vagaries of ever-changing citation templates). "Manually created citations are not preferred by anyone who knows other options unless they special reasons to use them." Excuse me ????

With those clarifications, Doc James is right. Adding cite doi or cite pmid templates creates extra work for other editors, is likely to yield inconsistencies, and will most often preclude Featured article status. Have you really made this whole huge long post because Doc James asked you to use grown-up methods of citing? Seriously, are we not all busy? No, we aren't going to standardize citation methods to one style, that is a perennial failing proposal; see

WP:CITEVAR. If you want to continue to use cite pmid or cite doi or if anyone wants to add citations to an article that breaches CITEVAR, well, don't expect others not to be irritated when you create extra work for them. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 19:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy.

1. I clarified - I am talking about multiple technical ways to generate a nearly identical citation.
2. I have no idea about Diberri's tool, but Boghog's last note is that it is not completely functional.
3. True, thanks, that is probably why some people prefer full citations.
4. Sorry. I am unable to express myself. Please excuse me. Change my text if you like.

CITEVAR has nothing to do with any of this. CITEVAR concerns the final appearance of citations, and I am concerned about the products of automated tools. I made this post not for James' sake, but because I teach a lot of people Wikipedia best practices and I wanted to document what I tell others. I am not sure that the automated tools were thoughtfully designed to give different output, but it could be so. If you feel too busy for this then you must be, and it was not my intent to place any obligation on you. I apologize for whatever I did that made you feel this way and I generally regret that my actions get stressed out responses from you. What I wrote matters to my work and the work of my peers and colleagues. Thank you for giving me space to do share something relevant to my work and which was important to me and my community. I always appreciate your feedback. Happy new year. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

CITEVAR is relevant, because people generally hold that it does apply to the method used to produce the visible result (e.g., whether formatting is handled by a template or through manual formatting). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

We have sparse Anatomy guidelines and it seems like there is consensus that the guidelines be maintained here as opposed to separately under

Mark 1

Anatomical articles:

• Lead, which should begin by stating in the most general form the location and purpose of the structure. For example, The toe is a bone found in the human foot
• Structure including a brief description of location and size, course, insertions and attachments. Possible subsections for blood supply, lymphatic drainage and innervation if these are complex enough. There is no need to duplicate information provided in the infobox.
  • Variations, describing variations.
  • Other animals (may include comparative anatomy for discussing non-human anatomy in articles that are predominantly human-based)
• Development, discussing the embryological/foetal and early-life development of the structure. May be included as a subsection in 'structure' for minor anatomical structures
• Function
• Clinical significance, discussing related diseases, medical associations with the structure, and use in surgery.
• History, describing the structure and the etymology of the word
• Society and culture, which may be excluded in minor anatomical structures.
• Other animals (may include comparative anatomy for discussing non-human anatomy in rticles that are predominantly human-based)
• Additional images provided in a gallery format.
• See also, providing a link to the common's image category for images. If article makes use of anatomical terminology, please add {{Anatomy-terms}} as the first link in the 'see also' section.
• References Please add tags such as {{Gray's}} as the first link in the references section.

Ping to

The Other animals section should always come after all of the human material (just before the Additional images or See also section, of course), as far as I'm concerned; it should be that way not only because these articles will generally be human-focused, but because we need readers to know that up until the Other animals section, everything above that is about humans. Otherwise, we'd have complicated sectioning that is pointing out what sections are about humans and what sections are not. This is the very reason that WP:MED articles almost always have the Other animals section come after all of the human material. And as shown in this discussion, when the Other animals section was added to the anatomy layout in 2012, it was placed last; I moved it just above the Additional images listing because of course the gallery should come last.

As for the rest, structure is a part of development and vice versa. Variations is also a part of structure. So is function. But all of that is beside the point since we already have those listings as separate. Speaking of separate, I also have never liked that WP:MEDMOS generally separates "History" from "Society and culture"; history is a part of society and culture. I'd rather the anatomy layout only be changed somewhat if it must be changed at all. But either way, I won't always strictly follow the layout and I might object to someone trying to impose their preference on an article. The same goes for citation style, per

talk

) 03:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree other animals should go at the end.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Another thing: As also seen in the 2012 discussion about the Other animals listing, I'm confused about whether the Location and structure section should come before the Development section; that is a case-by-case matter, but I think that I generally prefer including the information about how the structure developed before we otherwise describe the structure. I also don't think that "Location" is needed as part of the heading. When we are discussing the structure, it will naturally address the location of those structures.

talk

) 05:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that 'location' is not needed, as it is implied by structure and may be covered there, and, viz, is usually readily addressed in the lead. --

talk

) 05:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Have made the change as suggested above to the 'other animals', although I acknowledge with the simultaneous RfC this may change. For articles with minor information available for 'other animals', it may be practical to incorporate it under 'structure', although otherwise this layout may be preserved. --

talk

) 05:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Please give due consideration to the scope of anatomy. It includes all animals, and allowing for the full range of additional non-human material that may legitimately be included at some time at this stage could avoid conflict later. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I have noted this below and opened an RfC on this matter. --

talk

) 06:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose image galleries.
  WP:GALLERY, "However, Wikipedia is not an image repository." We have commons for that. SandyGeorgia (Talk
  ) 15:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Re the gallery comment, I think this is because we generally tend to have a surplus of anatomy images. Rather than randomly distribute them in the article, additional images (i.e. any images not in the infobox) were supposed to go into the gallery to keep the article tidy. I have no strong feelings on this particular issue. Lesion (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Rather than adding galleries, we have commons cats. I don't think that the argument that we have too many anatomy images is a good reason to chunk up article space with the surplus. Do you remember the infamous issue with plastic surgery images? Why should we extend something that is not in MEDMOS currently to anatomy? We have commons for that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy for people to pick a handful of our best images and leave the rest on commons, but it might be worth noting that many anatomy articles already have such galleries at the end. But here, we are discussing the guideline format. @

CFCF: for opinion re. anatomy images. Lesion (talk

) 16:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, many articles have these galleries and I think for the moment we will need to acknowledge their existence. One reason these are proliferating is the short size of many anatomy articles. I personally believe that the majority of the content in these galleries does not benefit readers, or could be included within the article bodies if the articles were longer. I have included in the 'mark 2' draft stronger language regarding this issue. --

talk

) 06:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd go as far as to say that almost all the articles currently have these galleries. Anatomy is a very visual science and will require a number of images. The best way is to add these at the end of the article as I see it, and any other way of doing it would result in momentous extra work. On the other hand there may be a real need to put a limit on how many images can be linked. Those linking over 15-20 are merely taking up space, and there is seldom need for that many, or even a fraction as many.

CFCF (talk

) 18:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Function is the physiology ... I think it is reasonable to have a dedicated physiology section? Lesion (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Lesion, like I stated, I can't see the need for the Function section; the physiology is discussed in the Structure and Development sections. The Function listing is an unnecessary and confusing listing (unnecessary and confusing to me at least).

talk

) 16:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

If by "physiology," we mean the study of the organs, which is what the first line of the

talk

) 16:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The structure is how it looks, what it is made of, how it is arranged etc, and I would define function/physiology as what it does, and how it does this. We could lump structure and function together, indeed evolution dictates that the structure is adapted to better achieve its intended function; but they are potentially distinguishable topics. For articles about organs, I anticipate that we already have extensive physiology content... in fact, maybe we should not consider these articles to be purely about anatomy... Lesion (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

We still disagree on the arrangement with regard to material about how the organ works; if I included a Function heading, it would be a subsection of the Structure section. But to me, "function" is redundant, per my above view on the matter. I do understand how you are distinguishing the terms, but, unless simply listing the parts, I don't see how one can describe the structure without describing that structure's function; even in the case of

talk

) 17:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with

CFCF (talk

) 18:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a case-by-case matter if a separate "Function" section is needed for some articles but not for others; we should clarify that in the layout with a parenthetical note, like we have clarified other matters in the layout with a parenthetical note. I still don't see that listing as needed, however; I welcome an example on that matter.

talk

) 19:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Lesion above. I feel that 'structure' does not convey the idea of the functional purpose of an anatomical item to the lay reader, and I feel it is helpful to separate the structure of an anatomical article to its function. I feel that the term 'physiology' conveys the idea of a process, which is not appropriate for many anatomical articles (eg a muscle extends at A and abducts at B, or rotates at A and flexes at B), and additionally its meaning may not be readily apparent to many readers. I feel one of the most compelling arguments to retain the title 'function', in addition to arguments about clarity, is that the structure/function distinction is one found in the language of almost every anatomy textbook. However, I recognise that this is quite different depending on the type of anatomical article we are talking about (major organ systems and systems articles vs. small articles), and have included language to reflect this in the second draft. --

talk

) 06:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that when a lay reader reads a section titled Structure, one of the things they are also expecting to read in that section is how that structure functions; I still can't see this "Structure/Function" differentiation as needed or as making great sense; the

talk

) 07:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Lead, which should begin by stating in the most general form the location and purpose of the structure. For example, The toe is a bone found in the human foot  apparent consensus
• Structure including a brief description of location and size, course, insertions and attachments. Possible subsections for blood supply, lymphatic drainage and innervation if these are complex enough. There is no need to duplicate information provided in the infobox.  apparent consensus
  • Variations, describing variations.
  • Development, discussing the embryological/foetal and early-life development of the structure. May be included as a subsection in 'structure' for minor anatomical structures.  apparent consensus
• Function or Physiology as appropriate
• Clinical significance, discussing related diseases, medical associations with the structure, and use in surgery.  apparent consensus
• History, describing the structure and the etymology of the word.  apparent consensus
• Society and culture, which may be excluded in minor anatomical structures.  apparent consensus
• Other animals
• Additional images to store additional high-quality images. These images should be kept to a minimum and provided in gallery format. Additional images may be stored in Wikicommons.
• See also, providing a link to the common's image category for images. If article makes use of anatomical terminology, please add {{Anatomy-terms}} or {{AT}} as the first link in the 'see also' section.
• References Please add tags such as {{Gray's}} as the first link in the references section.  apparent consensus

I have updated the draft and marked the sections that appear to have consensus. I have made the following changes:

• Updated the language in the 'additional images' section
• Updated the language in 'function or physiology' to allow for organ variation (see my above comments)
• I am at a loss as to what to do with 'comparative anatomy', so I have retained the current formatting, and have opened an RfC on this matter here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy#RfC:_Use_of_.22Human.22_in_Anatomy_article_titles, and would ask users to localise debate regarding this particular issue to the RfC, through which changes may be made.
• Not a change, but I would like to explicitly state that 'development' should be chosen in lieu of 'embryology', as organ systems develop past the embryo stage. --
  talk
  ) 06:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Other animals covers "comparative anatomy," and that is the title we use (it explicitly informs readers that we are speaking of non-human animals), per the commentary above; I don't understand your change there. As for choosing "Development" instead of "Embryology," that depends. If the section is only about embryology, then titling the section "Embryology" is certainly fine. "Embryology" might also be a subsection of "Development."

talk

) 06:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Accidental. Have rectified. --

talk

) 07:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Any thoughts on the Variations listing? I view it as complicated. More than one aspect of an organ can have variations, and it will likely be best to discuss those variations in the appropriate sections instead of trying to lump them all in one section. So I don't see the Variations listing as needed.

talk

) 07:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Often concerning smaller structures, their name is quite central, and there may be many names with many etymologies, mashing this together with society and culture isn't preferable. On the other hand this isn't relevant for all articles, maybe have the split as voluntary for each article?

CFCF (talk

) 10:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Have copied your signature above to split this into two separate threads. Etymology is important, however it is intertwined with history and, for a majority of articles, may boil down (at least in the conceivable future) to one-two sentences explaining the meaning of the terms in Latin or Greek. This is partly a result of the Latin and Greek roots of the words which have remained relatively stable since the structures have been identified (excluding the bastardisation of the grammar). I feel it's more useful to integrate this into the history section than have a 1-2 sentence section, distinct from history, that explains this. --

talk

) 13:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the placement of it should still be emphasized in the layout as a choice, especially given how editors sometimes take WP:MEDMOS as gospel and go around imposing that layout exactly as is on articles with an established layout.

talk

) 14:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It's for this reason that I really don't think etymology deserves a standalone section or subsection. For the vast majority of articles, etymology boils down to a single sentence, that is best reflected in the history section as part of a discussion of why it is so-named, and how this integrates with the development of understanding of the organ. Often the etymology is intertwined with the history (See eg

talk

) 16:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

From what I have seen, it actually is not the vast majority of articles that don't need a standalone etymology section; articles outside of WP:MEDMOS tend to have healthy etymology material that is presented as a standalone etymology section. Either way, anatomy articles generally not deserving a standalone etymology section does not mean that they never do. So your compromise addition of "Etymology may be included as a separate subsection, if sufficient information exists." is a good compromise. I was not suggesting that a sentence or short paragraph be a standalone section; I am aware of

talk

) 04:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Concerning variations this isn't either relevant for all articles, but you can go as far as to say that pretty much each and every part of an organ/structure can vary. Variation should include the most common variations, which are most of the time variations of large sections of the organ, or the entire organ. Having a subdivision is a very easy way to find info on variations that is hard to find otherwise. Normally anatomy text-books, atlases etc. have individual sections on variations, and I believe Wikipedia should as well. The problem is not just one for Wikipedia, but its very hard to define many variations at all. For example the two main articles:

CFCF (talk

) 10:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree. One of the more frustrating things I had found initially when using Wikipedia is that it had no information on variation, which is one of the most interesting aspects of Anatomy. Almost every anatomical item is sure to have a degree of variation, and it's important to record it. --

talk

) 13:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

CFCF and LT910001, what we have stated on this matter is exactly why we should not be suggesting in our layout that an editor should create a Variations section. It's too complicated, because so many aspects can have variations and those are arguably better covered in the sections about those parts if a need is seen to cover them. Who is to say what are the most important variations that should be covered? We don't need all the variations packed into one section. And having more than one section titled Variations wouldn't be helpful, especially since editing that will automatically take the editor to the first section with the identical heading after pressing "Save page." Wikipedia is not supposed to mimic an anatomy book; it's supposed to summarize the anatomy information in a

talk

) 14:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If we are to treat Wikipedia as a serious resources for anatomy, we must at least attempt to reflect the field itself. Almost any anatomy resource consulted, to which I refer you to any textbook or journal article, covers the following four areas: structure, function, variation, and history. To not cover one of these areas is deliberately ignoring an important area of the field. I fail to see how discussing variation is any more "complicated" than, for example, selectively describing what complications may ensue from a disease. I do however agree with your point that this section should be optional, as there may indeed not be sufficient information available on many structures for this section to occur. --

talk

) 16:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

We (referring to our use of WP:MEDMOS) don't selectively describe what complications may ensue from a disease, not generally anyway; we describe, or at least mention, all of the diseases and their complications. "Generally" comes in with regard to the fact that we are not likely to mention complications that are not significant. And there usually are not too many complications to name. Comparing the "complications from a disease" matter and the vague, ever-possible variations matter is like comparing apples and oranges. I am not saying that we should not cover variations (I clearly stated that variations should be covered in the appropriate sections); I am saying that there is no need for a section titled Variations. And I don't know what else to state to explain my feelings on that matter. However, thanks for at least compromising on that.

talk

) 17:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Re. including anatomical terms of location in the see also any article that contains anatomic terms, I oppose this facet. Firstly, we should not include see also wikilinks when they are already linked in the body of the article, and ideally the first instance of any anatomic term will already be wiklinked. Secondly, I do not think we should blanket this kind o see also. Any vaguely dermatology related stub contains the see also link
  List of cutaneous conditions. It seems to me that such a link was more for the benefit of people writing the stubs than readers. It is not really encyclopedic imo. Lesion (talk
  ) 11:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Lead, which should begin by stating in the most general form the location and purpose of the structure. For example, The toe is a bone found in the human foot
• Structure including a brief description of location and size, course, insertions and attachments. Possible subsections for blood supply, lymphatic drainage and innervation if these are complex enough. There is no need to duplicate information provided in the infobox.
  • Variations, describing variations, where these are documented.
• Development, discussing the embryological/foetal and early-life development of the structure. May be included as a subsection in 'structure' for minor anatomical structures.
• Function or Physiology as appropriate
• Clinical significance, discussing related diseases, medical associations with the structure, and use in surgery.
• History, describing the structure and the etymology of the word. Etymology may be included as a separate subsection, if sufficient information exists.
• Society and culture, which may be excluded in minor anatomical structures.
• Other animals
• Additional images to store additional high-quality images. These images should be kept to a minimum and provided in gallery format. Additional images may be stored in Wikicommons.
• A link to the common's image category for images may be provided in the 'see also' section. If article makes use of anatomical terminology, please add {{Anatomy-terms}} or {{AT}} as the first link in the 'see also' section.
• If the article uses text from public domain source, please add tags such as {{Gray's}} as the first link in the section relating to references.

I have updated these proposed changes as followed: --

• Have added "where these are documented." to highlight the 'variations' section as being contingent on published evidence of variations.
• Have made no change to the 'history' section per the above discussion.
• Made clear that there are no set titles for 'see also' and 'references', but provided guidance as to where to place the tag for Gray's (which occurs in many articles) and the link to commons images

Why do we need to mention the lead? Like the "See also" and "References" listings, this is something that none of the other WP:MEDMOS fields make mention of and is a WP:LAYOUT matter; it's also a

talk

) 17:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a

talk

) 02:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't see the Lead listing as needed at all. Having it makes it seem like there is something so much more special about the lead with regard to anatomy articles than there is with regard to the more hardcore medical fields. There isn't. It also makes it seem like anatomy article editors aren't smart enough to know what should and should not go in the lead. What should and should not go in the lead is based on WP:LEAD, not on any one editor's preference here. And "Society and culture and history are two separate entities on all the other MEDMOS sections" simply because of the headings; there is no getting around the fact that history is a part of society and culture, which is exactly why that separation has never made a bit of sense to me. It is not as though we cannot deviate from that layout, considering that we have deviated from other ways that WP:MEDMOS is set up for the other fields, including your preference that we keep a Lead listing. So, yes, we will have to agree to disagree on this one because if I have a Society and culture section, such as at the

talk

) 03:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What we're usually looking for under ==History== is something like "This obscure body part was first formally described by Alice Expert in 1824, which explains why it's called Expert's Thingamajig in older works." Under ==Society and culture==, we're usually expecting to find something like, "This is the finger that some Westerners wave around to advertise their lack of manners". Basic facts about what-happened-when are not really "social" or "cultural" issues; things about modern society are not history. That said, there are times in which combining the two makes a lot of sense, or simply to omit the history section entirely. For example, I doubt that there's anything to be said under ==History== for an article about an obvious body part. (What would you put under ==History== for an article like Arm? "Experts suspect that people noticed that humans usually have arms rather before historical records were kept, but nobody can be sure"?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that "[b]asic facts about what-happened-when are not really 'social' or 'cultural' issues"; they were social and cultural issues at that time. I didn't state that every social or cultural matter is a history matter. I stated that history is a part of society and culture, and it is. If we have a Society and culture section, then history information should be under that section instead of presented as a standalone section...as far as I'm concerned. There are a variety of subsections that can be under a Society and culture section; nothing convinces me that History should not be one of those subsections. We obviously agree on the latter part of your comment on this matter.

talk

) 04:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

One reason for my arguing against the division between "History" and "Society and culture" is that I considered something similar to that division when bringing the

talk

) 03:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm pretty happy with this. After reading the rationale, agree "development" is more accurate than "embryology". Have I missed why "development" is now a subsection of structure rather than a stand alone section? Lesion (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

De-indented. I want to make this clear that this may be included as a subheading for smaller articles. --

talk

) 12:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not just a "may be included as a subheading for smaller articles" matter. Lesion, this was covered in the Guidelines mark 1 section and at the beginning of the Guidelines mark 2 section; in the first one, I stated "structure is a part of development and vice versa." No one disagreed with that because embryology clearly concerns the organ's structure. I also stated that I "generally prefer including the information about how the structure developed before we otherwise describe the structure." and that "I'd also likely usually have the Development section as a subsection of the Structure section, but I now see that LT910001 mentions that editing choice as part of the layout proposal." That option was already in LT910001's proposal before I mentioned it (even though LT910001 restricted it, and still currently restricts it, by stating "for minor anatomical structures"). The anatomy debate that was actually gotten into was about including a Function listing when the function of the organ/other matter is going to be discussed in the Structure section, and sometimes additionally in the Development section. In the Guidelines mark 2 phase, after making the Development section a subsection of the Structure section in the proposal, it was LT910001 who conflated "Development" and "Embryology," relaying, "I would like to explicitly state that 'development' should be chosen in lieu of 'embryology', as organ systems develop past the embryo stage." But like I stated, that matter depends. "If the section is only about embryology, then titling the section 'Embryology' is certainly fine. 'Embryology' might also be a subsection of 'Development." Look at what the description for the Development section states; it states "discussing the embryological/foetal and early-life development of the structure. May be included as a subsection in 'structure' for minor anatomical structures." So, clearly, that is a structure matter and we emphasize that it doesn't necessarily have to be a subsection of Structure. Still, it might be better to not present it as a subsection of Structure in the layout since we already clarify that it may be a subsection of that.

talk

) 13:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(

WP:MEDMOS#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes

does with classification: