Talk:Human anatomy: Difference between revisions
imported>Thomas E Kelly No edit summary |
imported>Thomas E Kelly |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Definition suggestions== | ==Definition suggestions== | ||
I think medical gross anatomy should be added in the definition of human anatomy. The name Gross is used so often to refer to Human anatomy that I think it is worth being redundant. [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 15:36, 17 February 2007 (CST) | I think "medical gross anatomy" should be added in the definition of human anatomy. The name Gross is used so often to refer to Human anatomy that I think it is worth being redundant. [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 15:36, 17 February 2007 (CST) | ||
==Things I added for fun that were then deleted by David== | ==Things I added for fun that were then deleted by David== |
Revision as of 15:37, 17 February 2007
Definition suggestions
I think "medical gross anatomy" should be added in the definition of human anatomy. The name Gross is used so often to refer to Human anatomy that I think it is worth being redundant. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 15:36, 17 February 2007 (CST)
Things I added for fun that were then deleted by David
These things may have not been the best fit for this article but they were fun facts, I thought
From Mnemonic
BCS - Branches of aorta
- Bowl - brachiocephalic artery
- Championship - left common carotid artery
- Series - left subclavian artery
Davide said these should go in a different article, he's probably correct. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:02, 17 February 2007 (CST)
From definition
I added words to be incorporated, Gross Anatomy, Macroanatomy, Microanatomy.
- These words are covered in the parent article Anatomy, says David on my user talk page. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:02, 17 February 2007 (CST)
"parent article"
I think we can improve the way we have the link to the main anatomy article but I can't think of the wording yet. looking for input. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:06, 17 February 2007 (CST)
The order of reference books
Netter is by far the most superior atlas written in my mind and I'm going to vote that it gets the number 1 spot. I would argue that Rohen Color atlas is also a superior atlas and I vote it also be considered for a higher rank on the reference book section. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:17, 17 February 2007 (CST)