Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy

WikiProject Anatomy Talk Page
Main page	Discussion	Things To Do	Tools	Article alerts	Manual of Style	Resources

"Interstitial region" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Interstitial region has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 15 § Interstitial region until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Anatomical terms of location

Anatomical terms of location has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hypercorrection with regards to plural form of anatomical terms in English

Hello not sure this project is active .

I have noted on a few anatomy articles that plural forms like recti abdominis muscles are used (e.g. linea alba (abdomen)). I have no doubt that this is grammatically correct in Latin, however perhaps it would be better to say "Rectus abdominis muscles". This is in order to use the more widely recognized term.

This may be a case of hypercorrection. What I mean is, if we are speaking English and not Latin, then we can use the plural form of "muscles" to show that we are talking about both the left rectus abdominis muscle and the right one. There is no real need to additionally use the latin plural form "recti abdominis". I note that the term "Recti abdominis muscles" does not appear once in Gray's Anatomy. The term "recti abdominis" appears only once in the whole book, and then it appears without the word "muscle/muscles". That may be significant. I also note that the article previously said "Rectus abdominis muscles" and it was changed to "recti abdominis muscles" here [1]

Anyway, just a thought. Moribundum (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Further note, the editor who changed that term may not be a native speaker of English. Their native language may have more extensive agreement according to grammatical number [2] between noun and any modifiers, hence the hypercorrection (or maybe I'm wrong).

For example in English we almost never change the adjective if the noun is plural:

• Tall man (correct)
• Tall men (correct)
• Talls men (error)
• Rectus abdominis muscle (correct)
• Rectus abdominis muscles (correct)
• Recti abdominis muscles (error)

Hope that makes sense. Moribundum (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your fascinating query @Moribundum. I agree that the lay variant that most people would write is as you suggest it. However, I do wonder if ENGVAR in this case is appropriate - I am sure a subset of English speakers take trouble to 'properly' pluralise their latinate terms. My feeling on what you've said is that a case-by-case basis is most appropriate, but if there is some teuton who is making their way through all our articles I don't think that's appropriate. I am definitely a supporter in general of using more accessible language for our articles (see also my essay Wikipedia:ANATSIMPLIFY on this). Tom (LT) (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I read your essay. Broadly agree although personally think best approach is giving anatomical term of location with lay term in brackets: inferior (below)

Not sure if this is happening a lot / systematically. I found only 1 other example: Pelvic fascia

Arguably, it is better to say " Levatores ani" (Latin term, refers to both muscles) than "levatores ani muscle" (plural Latin form plus singular "muscle"... makes no sense), which I then corrected to "levator ani muscles"

Might be good if someone looked at that article since it still contains such forms as "vesiculæ seminales"

Maybe you and any other active editors on anatomy articles should agree a few sentences to add to some guideline about how to write paired anatomical structures. Kind regards, Moribundum (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposed splits from Organ (biology)

In searching for a page on the innervation of the pelvic viscera, I found that Organ (biology) is the current redirect for this. Given that this particular innervation is quite complicated and at times fails to respect boundaries between different organ systems (ie, the Pudendal nerve doing absolutely anything it feels like to any tissue in the area) I do think it deserves its own page. At the very least, it should be apparent that the current redirect target does not provide remotely enough information on the subject.

This could notably establish precedent for further page creation of organs based on anatomical location. I do think this is a good idea if it does happen. Further discussion at Talk:Organ (biology)#Proposed splits Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Issue with linea semilunaris article

There seems to be a major issue with the Linea semilunaris article. See these two versions of the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linea_semilunaris&oldid=1225613544 (new version)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linea_semilunaris&oldid=1214547244 (old version)

Essentially the entire article was deleted and rewritten. The issue at hand is whether The linea semilunaris corresponds with the lateral border of the rectus abdominis muscle or not. The editor who changed the page is using the following aritcle as a source: [3]. Here is the main relevant point:

>Adriaan van den Spiegel described the Linea Semilunaris as the line forming and marking the transition from muscle to aponeurosis in the transversus abdominis muscle of the abdomen (“circa quam tendines obliquorum abdominis musculorum incipent”) [7]. The Linea Semilunaris, also known as the Semilunar Line, plays a crucial role in delineating the Spigelian fascia. This fascia refers to the portion of the aponeurosis situated between the Linea Semilunaris and the lateral border of the rectus muscle. Whenever there is a congenital or acquired defect in this Spigelian fascia, it can lead to the protrusion of a peritoneal sac, an organ, or preperitoneal fat, a condition known as a hernia Spigelii or Spigelian hernia. In 1764, Klinkosch described this type of Spigelian hernia; however, it was not until 1877 that Mollière used this eponym for it.

>As per Wikipedia’s 2023 definition, the Linea Semilunaris is defined as: “The Semilunar Line, Linea Semilunaris or Spigelian line is a curved tendinous intersection found on either side of the rectus abdominis muscle. The Linea Semilunaris corresponds with the lateral border of the rectus abdominis muscle” [8]. What led to this misunderstanding and when did it arise? The current commonly used definition, which states that the Linea Semilunaris represents the lateral border of the rectus sheath where the lateral muscles merge to form the rectus fascia, is incorrect. In reality, the anterior rectus fascia comprises the aponeurotic contributions from the MOE and the anterior lamina of the MOI. Conversely, the posterior rectus is formed by the posterior lamina of the MOI and the TA muscle. While the contribution from the MOI and the lower one-third of the TA muscle is aponeurotic in nature, the upper portion of the abdomen consists of a muscular component from the TA muscle.

>Therefore, it is evident that a significant disparity exists between the original description and the current misunderstanding of the Linea Semilunaris. In fact, each lateral abdominal wall muscle exhibits a distinct intersection line between its muscular and aponeurotic part. None of these lines bears any resembles to the lateral border of the rectus sheath, and only one of these lines possesses a semilunar shape, specifically the one formed with the TA muscle.

The name of the editor of the new version of the Linea semilunaris article is also the same name as one of the authors of said article. All the images for the linea semilunaris were also removed and replaced with images from the above paper.

Even if his point is correct, I don't think the article can be rewritten wholesale to use this new definition (or original definition, according to the author). If standard anatomy textbooks are using a certain definition it makes no sense to delete that version. At best, the new definition could be included into the article in a sentence or two, such as some researchers propose using x term instead of y term because z reason and note that [...]. WP:WEIGHT is probably the most relevant guideline here.

In the meantime I reverted the new version. I hope someone more knowledgeable here can give some input on what the best thing to do here is. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, obviously we should bring back the original article as that is the standard definition. I'm just wondering if we should bother mentioning the new definition. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)