Gender based diffencces in muscle which occurs in both gender
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There are a lot of muscles in this list which appears in both gender, but there seem to be a lot of sources that suggest that there is still some (mostly minor) differences between these:
Is there a good way to capture and describe these with data that can be applied to every muscle in the table or is the best solution to make a small text below and try and describe it? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Current ambiguities in naming convention
Latest comment: 1 year ago18 comments2 people in discussion
I thought we might list the current ambiguties in the naming convention here to make it easier for people to join the discussion on how to do it.
- When do we use latin names? and when do we use english?
- Do we always use arabic numeral? or does it make sense to use Roman ocatoinally? or for some things?
- How much or how little information should be included in Origin and Insertion
- What logic do we use to describe the location in the body and why? right now it is split kind of abetrary
I went with TA2 "US English" as the basis for all names, they're easy to look up. Although they are called "English" names, as you will see from looking at the table, the names are mostly in Latin, it is just some spelling irregularities and then the parts like "dorsal part" are given in English rather than in Latin ("Dorsal parts of lateral intertransversarii lumborum muscles" vs "Partes dorsales musculorum intertransversariorum lateralium lumborum"). Then I added commas, removed "muscle", and put the parts from least significant to most significant, like "intertransversarii, lateral lumborum, dorsal parts". In pretty much all cases, this gave a name close to what the existing Wikipedia page was called, so I think using TA2 as the reference is reasonable.
So, in [1], 93% of people said to use Arabic numerals for vertebrae. And also, in the diagrams for finger muscles, some studies for rib muscles (intercostostals and so on), they used Arabic numerals. So in the numbers for muscles I've used Arabic. But for example cranial nerves, those are apparently always in Roman, so they're Roman. I've been trying to follow common usage and so whatever's common is good.
I've just used the Origin/Insertion from the muscle infobox from the individual muscle pages. The infobox format gives the editors some incentive to keep the descriptions short, but some are just long. I think the info is mainly sourced from Gray's Anatomy 20th edition.
Well, I was thinking about using the TA2 hierarchy for location, it is sort of organized the way we want, like "Muscular system of upper limb > Muscles of upper limb > Anterior compartment of forearm > Superficial part of anterior compartment of forearm > Pronator teres". Revised and deduplicated, that is something like "upper limb, forarm, anterior compartment, superficial part". But it is a lot of work to munge the hierarchy paths like that, I think it would have to be semi-automated at least, from the OPML export or TA2Viewer data.
Something seems odd about: pharyngeal constrictor, inferior(thyropharyngeal part, cricopharyngeal part) and pharyngeal constrictor, middle, (chondropharyngeal part, ceratopharyngeal part) and pharyngeal constrictor, superior(pterygopharyngeal part, buccopharyngeal part, mylopharyngeal part, glossopharyngeal part), something feels unsmooth about this double subdivision, it feels like there is not regerous rules for when what subdivisions goes first. - But then again, I don't have any concrete solutions for a better solution yet. In theory one could also say Inferior, Middle and, superior Part. causing a lot of confusing with the futher subdivide? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Another thing that also seems to be confusing at times is the Suffixes vs. Prefixes in the naming convention. you have examples like levator veli palatini and tensor veli palatini where prefixes are used to denote the difference. and then you have pharyngeal constrictor, superior/Inferior/Middle is there any Guidelines as to when suffixes are used and what for? vs. when Prefixes are used and what for? - and if there is can we please add them to the table explanation section? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Right, left vs. Right/left Also seems to be done inconsistently platysma and sternocleidomastoid have the the first kind and most of the rest have the second kind Claes Lindhardt (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Spaces and newlines leading to inconsitant sorting: it seems that for example Suprahyoid sometimes have a space and a new line in front of it in the locations column and sometimes not. which lead to Infrahyoid to ocationally pop inbetween when one sorts for location. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Neck/Upper Limb at levator scapulae, is also suboptimal overlab in terms of sorting, it makes sense because the muscle is aborad the two but maybe we could eiter make a convention for which of the two that goes first when there is an overlab or try to find a way of splitting which leads to less fuzzy stacks Claes Lindhardt (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
thoracis seems to be latin for 'of the chest'? it seems strange that it is used as a subcategory to Back, when it is followed by a catory called: Chest? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Same goes for Torso/Upper Limb(latissimus dorsi), with the torso being in the middle it makes sense that it have a lot of overlab with the other sections. But isen't there a way in which we can either redefine the limits of the torso to minimize overlabs, or find other sections to split the body into which avoids this problem? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The issue with these double locatio categories is that people who sort for location and then look at the list of upper limb might miss latissimus dorsi as it can only be found under t : Torso/Upper Limb Claes Lindhardt (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Hamstrings seems to mean: a group of 3 muscles in the posterior compartment of the thigh. From that logic maybe we could solve it simply by replaching the current '/' in 'Posterior compartment/hamstring' by a ',' and turn it into a sub-specefier of location? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
To which degree do we include parts in the names of muscles? e. g. 'external anal sphincter, subcutaneous, superficial, and deep parts' and hemidiaphragm(lumbar/costal/sternal part) and then mostly it seems that we do not do it? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Possible future graphic representation
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments1 person in discussion
The article: Stapedius muscle have a really cool graphical representation with the caption: 'Bones and muscles in the tympanic cavity in the middle ear' where you can simply click each link on the illustration and then it will take you to the wiki page. Would it make sense to make a kind of map which is also scrollable where you have all the muscles illustrated and you can then click each name on it to take you to the article page? or is that going to be to much data for one wiki article? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Here is a draft for an illustration that one might use as basis for such a thing? it should be zoomable. So far it only covers the head as a kind of van diagram based on the location of the different muscles.
File:SkeletalMuscleGroupingTour1.pdfA draft for how we could map the muscles in our list of skeletal muscles graphically based on location, showing variations and parts of the same muscle as well as number of standard occuranes in the human body
File:SkeletalMuscleGrouping2807.pdfAn updated draft for how we could map the muscles in our list of skeletal muscles graphically based on location, showing variations and parts of the same muscle as well as number of standard occuranes in the human body
File:MuscleGroupingV3.pdfV3 draft for how we could map the muscles in our list of skeletal muscles graphically based on location, showing variations and parts of the same muscle as well as number of standard occuranes in the human body Now only the Upper Limb is missing. I feel like there is a good few inconsitencis which become clear once you have them all on this format? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
So here is one with all the muscles we have in the list, with thier current location marker
File:AllMusclesInTheHumanBodyMappedOut.pdfAn attempt of a map the muscles in our list of skeletal muscles graphically based on location, showing variations and parts of the same muscle as well as number of standard occuranes in the human body
I think they should only appear once, it's not like there are two different muscles named "Obliquus capitis superior muscle" (well, there are two muscles, one on each side, but we're ignoring that in this list). In fact I'm not sure at all about dividing up the muscles by section at all - I think a single giant sortable table with a "location" column would be more useful. Because I was comparing this list against some others (the ones Claes mentioned below) and it's really hard to quickly tell if a muscle is missing besides putting both lists in alphabetical order and going down the lists. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I find this is a very good suggestion. We could put it on the format: Is there any of the muscles currently in there which would not fit this format? or can we start implementing it to make sorting, compereson and assuring no duplicates easier?
I thinm beeing able to quickly sort the list according to any one of these factors so that it can quickly be compared to other lists and updated is key, to staying up to date and making the information easily accessible? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking about just having a "Count" column instead of the number of occurrences and wiki number. So for example if the list was thumb muscle 1, thumb muscle 2, thumb muscle 3, the count would be 2,4,6 (2 muscle occurrences of each type, one on each hand). But of course it does require a little more work of actually clicking through to each muscle page and counting the number of occurrences instead of just the current ???. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I looked at the page, the columns are pretty much all the same for each section. The bigger issue is what counts as a muscle / table row. E.g. occipitofrontalis is divided into the occipitalis and frontalis bellies. I personally would just list the most specific reference, so two rows for occipitalis and frontalis and not mention occipitofrontalis. The current organization gets around this by having indented rows within the table, but that won't work with sorting. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
So maybe a row called: 'Common subdivisions' of the muscle? I like the idear of adding each occurance of a muscle as its own seperate entety in the list. Then it could be specefied in the 'location in the body which of the occurences of the muscle which is beeing refered to. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I tried adding an incompleate example of what we could do some of the [insert muscle] 2 are stilling missing some info, but it just have to be copied in from the identical muscle which is listed above it. With this list musle, it would be clear, how many there is of each muscle where they are as well as the total number of all muslce that one would find in a standard human born in our life time Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
After turning the tables already on wiki into sortable tables I noticed the blocks merged vertically are not so much the problem as these are automatically split when sorting, it is more vertical lines who are supposed to act as an indirect identifier such as: 'Rectus muscles' which sometimes start to be the wrong place after the lists are sorted. So that is one thing we need to overcome before we merge all the tables into one grand table. This could be solve like below by simply adding it in the name of all the muscles which it is relevant to.Claes Lindhardt (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
tried to list all the dublicates: dorsal interossei, latissimus dorsi, levator scapulae, rectus capitis lateralis, obliquus capitis inferior, obliquus capitis superior is there 2 times, it also seems like innermost intercostal and internal intercostal are really the same thing? semispinalis capitis and splenius capitis is somehow in the neck and torso? Sternohyoid and sternothyroid seems oddly similar no?
They're all different muscles in TA. I have found that Wikipedia is lacking in good pictures for many muscles. If you google the muscles for better pictures you will see. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Would it make sense to make a list of these? so that there is a central starting point for someone who wants to update them or create conistency in it? or is that just extra work which will not be used? - I think that in the case mentioned above it a bigger issue as it can be potentially misleading? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
iliococcygeus, pubococcygeus and Puborectalis muscle all link to the same artcle, which is not a problem. But the article describes these as just a part of the same muscle rather then different muscles? which is a bit confusing? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
is there an overlab between: semispinalis (thoracis, colli) and (semispinalis, splenius, splenius) Capitis later on? some of them seems to be using the same image? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
