Benutzer Diskussion:Wimpus

Bitte die Zusammenfassungszeile zur Erläuterung Deiner Bearbeitungen und zur Quellenangabe nutzen

Gruß --BKSlink 16:15, 21. Mär. 2010 (CET)

Neuroanatomie

Hallo Wimpus, du bist in der Wikipedia auf einen Schwachpunkt bzgl. der neuroanatomischen Begriffe gestoßen. Mal sind sie falsch geschrieben, mal sind die englischen Begriffe eingedeutscht und nicht dekliniert usw. Ich bin beim Sichten auf deine Änderungen und im Anschluss daran auf ebendieses Problem gekommen. Allerdings sind die eingedeutschten Begriffe wie präfrontaler Cortex, superiorer temporaler Gyrus usw. in den Neurowissenschaften Alltag, wohingegen in der (Neuro-)Anatomie die lateinischen Begriffe Standard sind. Bei Artikeln, die sich mit der Anatomie auseinandersetzen, sind die korrekten anatomischen Begriffe sicher passend, in Artikeln wie Neuroprothese dagegen eher das "neuro"wissenschaftliche ventraler intraparietaler Cortex (? eigentlich müsste das doch der intraparietale Sulcus sein ?). In anderen v. a. an Laien gerichtete Artikel ist auch z. B. Trigenimus-Nerv in Trigeminale Wahrnehmung oder Sehnerv statt Nervus opticus ausreichend (wohingehend optischer Nerv in Daphnien natürlich Quatsch war). Bevor du weitere Änderungen vornimmst, melde dich doch auf der Medizin-Redaktion (vgl. hier) und beteilige dich an der Diskussion. In der nächsten Zeit wird sich sicher eine passende Regelung finden :) EnduroLM 20:25, 21. Mär. 2010 (CET)

Ebenso :-) Ich finde eigentlich die rein wissenschaftlichen Begriffe OK, aber die Mediziner sollten da zu einem Consensus kommen und ... dann aber los ! GEEZER^{Spenden !? Spenden !!} 14:16, 16. Dez. 2012 (CET)

Danke. Is it also possible to discuss these issues in English? I am actually from The Netherlands and far from fluent in German. It seems rather odd and quite absurd, but when I am reading some of the entries on neuroanatomy it seems that a few expressions adhere more to the naming conventions in English than what used to be the general guidelines for the German speaking community of anatomists. Such expressions like "superior temporaler Sulcus", "subthalamischer Nucleus", "optischer Nerv" or "zerebraler Cortex" seems to be a straight translations from the English expressions "superior temporal gyrus", "subthalamic nucleus", "optic nerve" and "cerebral cortex", while German speaking anatomists seemed to favor expressions which made use of Latin grammar like "Sulcus temporalis superior", "Nucleus subthalamicus", "Nervus opticus" and "Cortex cerebri". Otherwise, one could argue that all that fancy jargon in Latin would scare people away, but I do not think that using hybrid forms that are actually a mixture of English, Latin and German at the same time, while none of those three languages are rendered correctly, would benefit the uninitiated reader. While some German neuroscientists (with probably clear roots in international (Anglosaxon) Academia, with less formal training in Anatomieunterricht) would prefer these hybrids for sake of intelligibility, using expressions like 'obere Schläfenfurche', 'Sehnerv', 'Großhirnrinde' seems to be more supportive for the layman. While the usage of these anglicisms seems to be quite naturally to some, these new coinages were probably not constructed purposively, but probably originated from unfamiliarity with the general Latin expression used by German anatomists. So, should the German wikipedia retain "optischer Nerv", "zerebraler Cortex", "superior temporaler Sulcus"? In case you want to respond to my reply, you could do this in Deutsch. With kind regards, Wimpus (Diskussion)

I transferred this Disk. to the "Medizin-Portal". I am of your opinion - but die Meds should have a word, too. GEEZER^{Spenden !? Spenden !!} 23:30, 16. Dez. 2012 (CET)

Hi Wimpus, please provide a small summary for your changes. Thank you, --Polarlys (Diskussion) 21:25, 17. Dez. 2012 (CET)

Dear Polarlys, thank you for notifying me. With kind regards, Wimpus (Diskussion) 22:03, 17. Dez. 2012 (CET)

Hi Wimpus,

short question: Shouldn't it be brachia colliculorum superiorum here? I'm not sure, but brachium should be Nominativ Plural there, shouldn't it? Regards -- Hepha! ± ion? 01:00, 18. Dez. 2012 (CET)

What a stupid mistake. Of course. I was preoccupied with correcting the incorrect genitive that I didn't pay attention to the incorrect plural of brachium (o-declension neuter). Thank you very much for notifying me. Wimpus (Diskussion) 01:04, 18. Dez. 2012 (CET)

My anatomy prof would be so proud ;) -- Hepha! ± ion? 01:06, 18. Dez. 2012 (CET)

In case you want to join the conversation about such issues like plurals of Brachium, please visit the "Medizin-Portal". I have started several threads concerning anatomic nomenclature and would like to hear the opinion of other people that pick-up such subtile distinctions (while others may call it futile distinctions). Thank you very much in advance, with kind regards, Wimpus (Diskussion) 01:20, 18. Dez. 2012 (CET)

As long as you correct obviously wrong nomenclature, I don't see a need for discussion. Plus, I don't feel skilled enough yet to join Portal:Medizin ;) Regards -- Hepha! ± ion? 01:24, 18. Dez. 2012 (CET)

Thank you

When it comes to Latin, a number of mistakes accumulated over the years. I don’t know the situation in the Netherlands, but in Germany you need sufficient knowledge in „medical Latin“ either from school (long years, see Latinum) or from one of your first courses during medical school. These courses usually take place in the first semester, there is more important stuff to do (finding a room, anatomy, chemistry and physics, anatomy, getting used to a students life, did I mention anatomy?) and most students don’t enjoy them. You get used to it, pass the exam, use it in your anatomy class. Later you talk about „RIVA“ or „PICA“. You slowly forget about „a-Deklination“ and „o-Deklination“ then. What I want to say: Thank you for your corrections. I added some additional rights to your account, your changes don’t need to be reviewed by us any longer. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. --Polarlys (Diskussion) 01:50, 22. Dez. 2012 (CET)

Dear Polarlys, that is very kind. In the Netherlands, there is a great divide between physicians that are exposed to Latin during their anatomy courses (by using a Sobotta atlas) and scientists in disciplines like psychology and neuroscience that are most of the time not aware that regions of the brain were actually (previously) known in the Netherlands by their Latin name, as they translate all the English expressions to Dutch on the fly, creating neologisms that might sound familar to those acquainted with the English nomenclature due to its resemblance, but are ill-formed and are replicated steadily with multiple mutations due to its de novo character. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Wimpus (Diskussion) 02:24, 22. Dez. 2012 (CET)

pyriform

I reverted your changes in botanical and mycological articles, because "pyriform" is a correct botanical term. Best wishes, --RLJ (Diskussion) 15:30, 16. Jan. 2013 (CET)

Neuroästhetik - Thanks!

Hi Wimpus, thank you for your clarification in the article Neuroästhetik. Indeed, I meant the Cortex cingularis anterior, which is referred to by Kawabata and Zeki. (2004). It is sometimes a little hard to translate these terms in German, as I commonly read about them in English texts :-) Best, Darian (Diskussion) 19:29, 30. Mai 2013 (CEST)

No thanks. For common neuroanatomical terms you can use the Terminologia Anatomica, that is now also available on the internet, see Terminologia Anatomica online with Latin and English nomenclature. You can also look at the English-Latin list of terms that is part of the Atlas of the human brain of Mai, see Nomenclature. Another site with a lot of translations is Braininfo. In addition, the original publication of Brodmann in German is available on the net at the Deutsche Zentralbibliothek für Medizin, which also mentions the Regio cingularis (now more commonly refered as Cortex cingularis). Besides these online sources, I use the brain atlas of Nieuwenhuys, various editions of Sobotta, Feneis, Benninghoff and various editions from the predecessor of the Terminologia Anatomica, the Nomina Anatomica (besides English and Dutch resources). Good luck with the online resources, with kind regards, Wimpus (Diskussion) 19:48, 30. Mai 2013 (CEST)

Thanks again :-) Kind regards, Darian (Diskussion) 08:51, 31. Mai 2013 (CEST)

Quotes in Massenpanik

Hi Wimpus,

please be careful not to alter quotes. 217.234.106.246 12:37, 1. Jun. 2013 (CEST)

Dear Anonymus,

You are absolutely right. I thought that the quote was from the first (English) and not the second (German) reference. Dirk Helbing uses psychologisch like psychisch, what is actually Denglish. Thanks for noticing, With kind regards, Wimpus (Diskussion) 12:43, 1. Jun. 2013 (CEST)

---

Transverse Myelitis

Hello Wimpus, my opinion is in Wikipedia the common name should be used not the scientific term unless it is necessary - if there is no common expression. Plants are also specified by their common name not the exact botanical distinction. As for the medical condition: TM is in no way Denglish. The self-help group began as a branch of the TMA (USA) and it is a pure coincidence that the name is composed similar to Multiple Sklerose or the like and thus in a way sounds familiar to a German ear. So I suggest we leave it as it is, as most Wikipedia readers are neither scientists nor medical experts. I hope for your understanding. Best wishes --Goblin girl (Diskussion) 10:40, 3. Jul. 2013 (CEST)

Ilium

Ilium ist in der Anatomie Singular. Ala ossis ilii ist definiert in den Nomina anatomica. Im klassischen Latein gibt es (laut Georges) neben dem Plural ile, Gen. ilium auch den Singular ilium mit Gen. Plural iliorum. Bitte die Änderungen rückgängig machen! --Sbaitz (Diskussion) 11:25, 19. Apr. 2014 (CEST)

Response

Dear, Sbaitz my apologies for responding in English as I am not fluent in German. However, you can reply in German, as I have no difficulties in reading it. Maybe my edits were a little bit 'conservative'. Each edition of the Nomina Anatomica since its renewed inception in Paris in 1955, as well as the most recent edition, rebaptized as Terminologia Anatomica all write ala ossis ilii. The latter being the supposed genitive of os ilium in the Terminologia Anatomica and the first four editions of the Nomina Anatomica (counting the Paris Nomina Anatomica as the first (new) edition) and of the os ilii of the fifth and sixth edition. The preceding Basle Nomina Anatomica (BNA) from 1895 and the Jena Nomina Anatomica (INA) first authorized in 1935, both write ala ossis ilium, which indicates that they suppose that the genitive of os ilium is actually ossis ilium. It depends on how the expression os ilium or os ilii is constructed, what the corresponding genitive should be.

Your argument that ilium is also attested as singular is completely true. But in case you want translate such an expression like os ilium, and consider ilium as neuter noun, an odd expression like bone flank or the bone the flank would results, instead of the intended bone of the flank(s). When referring to muscle names in Latin, apposition, i.e. two nouns in succession (in nominative case), is quit common, like musculus extensor (der Muskel der Strecker) or musculus flexor (der Muskel der Beuger), but not for names of bones. We use os pubis, with pubis as genitive of pubes, Scham(gegend) and not os pubes.

The name os ilium can be traced back to Vesalius and can be explained as genitivus pluralis of ile, die (Bauch)weiche. Os ilium considering this explanation can be translated as Bein der Bauchweichen. This actually mirrors the Greek expression τά πλατέα λαγόνων ὀστᾶ as can be found in the writings of Greek physician Galenos, with λαγόνων as genitivus pluralis of λαγών, "flanks "Weiche", and translated in German as "die breite Knochen der Bauchweichen". The ile is almost entirely used in its plural ilia in classical Latin, which might explain why ilium is used here as genitivus pluralis.

Alternatively one could explain os ilium as a noun (os) with an adjective (ilium). In Latin the adjective ilius/a/um actually exists, but is not "related to the Bauchweichen" but means "Trojan", as Troy is also referred to by the name Ilion or Ilium in classical Latin and Ἴλιον or Ἴλιος in Ancient Greek. The editors of the Nomina Anatomica could be mistaken and used erroneously ilium as adjective. But in that case, the use of ilium in expressions like arteria circumflexa ilium profunda, vena circumflexa ilium profunda, arteria circumflexa ilium superficialis and vena circumflexa ilium superficialis as can be found in the Terminologia Anatomica and the first five editions of the Nomina Anatomica is difficult to explain. In those last four expressions, it seems that ilium as genitivus pluralis of ile is intended and not as adjective, as the gender of the adjective should correspond to the gender of the noun. When considering ilium as adjective in those expressions there is a gender mismatch between ilium (=neuter) and arteria/vena (=feminine). It would be odd to use the same ilium in certain expressions as a neuter adjective and in other expressions as genitivus pluralis of ile.

Another possibility is to consider os ilii as the specific expression other expressions, like ala ossis ilii and corpus ossis ilii are derived from. That would make more sense than using os ilium and consider this as an expression consisting of two nouns in succession both in the nominativus singularis. The fifth edition uses os ilii, but also uses expressions like arteria circumflexa ilium profunda. That would implicate two forms within the fifth edition of ile. In os ilii, one supposes that the nominativus singularis is written as ilium while in the expression arteria circumflexa ilium profunda, the nominativus singularis ought the be ile. That is quite odd to suppose two different forms of the nominativus singularis within one edition of the Nomina Anatomica. The sixth edition replaced arteria circumflexa ilium profunda by arteria circumflexa iliaca profunda. Maybe they changed the latter expression to circumvent the aforementioned contradiction of using two different nominativi singulares. The Terminologia Anatomica reverted back the revisions of the sixth edition of the Nomina Anatomica for the expressions with ilium for the arteriae and venae.

The expressions with ilium as can be found in the BNA and INA seems to be the most consistent and moreover they can logically be explained, while the subsequent editions of the Nomina Anatomica contain expressions with ilium/ilii full of inconsistencies. Therefore, I think it is better to write ala ossis ilium and not the non-sensical ala ossis ilii, considering that os ilium and expressions like arteria circumflexa ilium profunda, vena circumflexa ilium profunda and arteria circumflexa ilium superficialis are used in the Terminologia Anatomica. With kind regards, Wimpus (Diskussion) 20:08, 19. Apr. 2014 (CEST)

Thank you for the long answer! Du hast recht mit der Inkonsistenz der anatomischen Begriffe. Allerdings sind die anatomischen Begriffe durch die FCAT festgelegt. Eine Abweichung von der "offiziellen" Terminologie halte ich für nicht empfehlenswert, auch wenn du deine Meinung gut begründet hast. --Sbaitz (Diskussion) 22:45, 19. Apr. 2014 (CEST)

Thank you very much for your response. I am an advocate of correcting obvious mistakes. In the index of the book version they are numerous simple declension errors, as reported by Marečková Using corpus ossis ilii instead of corpus ossis ilium is actually more than a simple declension error, as spotting such an error needs a little more knowledge about alternate expressions through the last decades, although someone with a grasp of Latin grammar, will also notice the inconsistencies as I have mentioned. But the alternate expressions is attested in earlier editions of the Nomina Anatomica, making it less revisionary than might seem prima facie. With kind regards, Wimpus (Diskussion) 15:41, 22. Apr. 2014 (CEST)

Paläontologische Artikel

Hallo Wimpus, bitte lasse die anatomischen Begriffe in Artikeln mit Paläontologiebezug wie sie sind. Begriffe wie "Fossa antorbitalis" statt Antorbitalfenster oder Os quardatum statt Quadratbein sind in der paläontologischen Fachliteratur völlig unüblich. Bei den in der Paläontologie aktiven Autoren ist es Konsens, die Begriffe zu verwenden, die auch in der paläontologischen Fachliteratur zu finden sind, und sämtliche Paläoartikel folgen diesem Konsens. Bist Du dennoch der Meinung, wir sollten überall die medizinischen Begrifflichkeiten verwenden, dann solltest Du das auf jeden Fall vorher mit den entsprechenden Autoren diskutieren, bevor du Änderungen vornimmst. So eine Diskussion starte am besten in der Wikipedia Diskussion:Redaktion Biologie. Danke und Gruß, --Jens Lallensack (Diskussion) 19:13, 26. Apr. 2014 (CEST)

Dear Jens Lallensack, my apologies for responding in English, as I am not fluent in German. You can respond in German as I have no difficulties in reading German. I doubt however whether the current nomenclature you are describing is purposefully constructed or can be merely explained by the fact that some scientists are fully unaware of the existence of Latin nomenclature. The current nomenclature seems like an ad-hoc translation from the English nomenclature. Additionally corroborated by the fact that English termini technici are sometime put behind brackets in the text. Fossa (in antorbitale Fossa) as noun in German instead of Grube seems quite odd to me. The nomenclature as used in palaeontology for dinosaurs has considerable overlap with the anatomic nomenclature for birds. The Nomina Anatomica Avium (see this pdf) lists all terms in Latin and can in this case be used. The form fenestra antorbitalis (Latin expression) is also used my Dutch textbook for comparative anatomy of vertebrates for describing the Archosauria. I have to check my shelves whether I have some German textbook on this matter, but Dutch textbook were always quite akin to German usage of Latin anatomic nomenclature. So, I doubt whether the Denglisch constructions are to be preferred. With kind regards, Wimpus (Diskussion) 19:37, 26. Apr. 2014 (CEST)

Dear Jens Lallensack, I have added two references to two English palaeontological papers that actually use the Latin nomenclature of the Nomina Anatomica Avium and explicitly refer to this specific publication. With kind regards, Wimpus (Diskussion) 20:37, 26. Apr. 2014 (CEST)

A quick search in Google Books shows: 2040 Books that contain "antorbital fenestra" ([1]), but only 9 books that contain "fenestra antorbitalis" ([2]). I urgently suggest to revert your changes in paleontological articles. --Jens Lallensack (Diskussion) 21:32, 26. Apr. 2014 (CEST)

"

Dear Jens Lallensack, thank you for your response, but I think your confusing English and German nomenclature. It would be non-sensical to use English expressions on the German wikipedia. However Latin expressions used in English articles can be used in a German text, as Latin nomenclature is used for centuries in anatomy, even when the main text is written in German. With kind regards, Wimpus (Diskussion) 21:39, 26. Apr. 2014 (CEST)

Warum sollte das auf Deutsch anders sein als auf Englisch? Nein, wir Paläontologen sagen "Antorbitalfenster", nicht Fenestra antorbitalis. Dasselbe gilt für die anderen anatomischen Begriffe. Ich möchte dir raten, die Änderungen entweder zurückzusetzen, oder eine entsprechende Diskussion auf Wikipedia Diskussion:Redaktion Biologie zu starten. Bei solch grundlegenden Änderungen, die sämtliche Paläo-Artikel betreffen, kommen wir um eine vorherige Diskussion mit den anderen Autoren des Fachgebiets nicht herum; die Diskussion hier fortzurühren führt zu nichts. --Jens Lallensack (Diskussion) 21:57, 26. Apr. 2014 (CEST)

Dear Jens Lallensack, I will start a discussion on Wikipedia Diskussion:Redaktion Biologie. But the anatomic nomenclature of Americans and Britts can be/is completely different as they actually anglicize Latin nomenclature. With kind regards, Wimpus (Diskussion) 22:11, 26. Apr. 2014 (CEST)

Unnecessary references in bone articles

Wimpus:

• I apologize for my bad latin. However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, hence, the genus of “os” and “cartilago” here does not primarily matter (there is a project called Wiktionary, in which such things are much more important and in which your work may be much more welcome). Some people having general difficulties in spelling also does not count since the correct spelling is already cited in the article (in fact referenced by the literature listed in the section “Literatur” – it is a peculiarity of the German Wikipedia that in-text references are not necessarily needed. See also bullet four.)
• In current German zoological standard textbooks the long form “Os ...” is not used (anymore). So it it is very much appreciated that the short forms without “Os” are used in the German Wikipedia as well, at least in the bulk of the article text (IMO also the lemmata should be changed accordingly).
• The palatoquadrate in many basal gnathostomans is not a bone. Furthermore, in osteognathostomans the primarily cartilaginous(!) palatoquadrate does not fully ossify but ossifies only in some parts, forming, among others, the Os quadratrum. Hence the term “Os palatoquadratum” (meaning “palatoquadrate bone”) is misleading and should be avoided.
• In German Wikipedia only the meaning of a word has to be referenced. The spelling of a word only has to be referenced in cases where there are different spellings of the same term. Since there are no different spellings of “Os quadratum” or “Quadratum” in the German-speaking literature, no references on the spelling are necessary. In fact also in-text references on the meaning are not necessary since there is literature cited at the end of the article. This is sufficient as long as there is a uniform meaning and use of this term throughout the literature (not only the cited one).

To conclude: All edits made by you in the articles Os quadratum, Os quadratojugale and Schuppenbein are absolutely unnecessary. --Gretarsson (Diskussion) 17:27, 27. Apr. 2014 (CEST)

Dear Gretarsson, thank you for your exposé.

• Ommiting Os

It seems that os is left out numerous time in palaeontological and zoological articles in German wikipedia when describing bones. In human and veterinary anatomy it is less common when referring to the Stirnbein to use frontale, as the Terminologia Anatomica and the Nomina Anatomica dictate to write Os frontale and not Frontale. In case you would write a text about the Stirnbein of humans, dogs, birds and dinosaurs, for the first three 'animals' you have to write 'Os frontale' and for the dinosaurs 'Frontale'. That would create some kind of distinction that is actually not real. Using 'Os frontale' for the latter is actually not Verboten. In Spezielle Zoologie. Teil 2: Wirbel- Oder Schädeltiere terms are sometimes used without os and with os, e.g. Os parietale/Parietale. So, in such cases I would applaud when a consistent nomenclature is used, instead of using Os consistently in human and veterinary nomenclature while ommitting os in most but not all cases in palaeontological and zoological wikipedia articles.

In some case it is even non-sensical to shorten Latin expressions by omitting 'Os'. See the etymological section I wrote for the English wikipedia for the lemma Os ilium.

• References for spelling

You mentioned "Since there are no different spellings of “Os quadratum” or “Quadratum”." Actually, there are at least three different morphological variants of Os quadratum. It seems to me that this necessitates references to support this diversity. Another lemma with a lot of diversity is Vordeckel, with Praeoperculare as alternate. It lacks however any German reference. So, in this case I do not know whether Vordeckel is a genuine German terminus technicus or somekind ad-hoc translation. Moreover, I would suppose that besides Vordeckel and Praeoperculare other variants llike Os praeoperculare, Os preoperculare, Präoperculare, Präoperkulare, Präoperkulum, Präoperculum, Preoperculum and Preoperculare would exist. A Google search immediate shows that all those variants are attested and Preoperculum, Präoperculare, Präoperculum, Präoperkulum, Praeoperculare. Praeoperculum and Vorderdeckel can be found in German wikipedia articles. I doubt however whether all these variants with various degrees of Latinitas and Eindeutschung can however be used. And moreover, in the official human, veterinary and avian nomenclature the diphthong ae in prae- is actually reduced to e (pre-). So, in this case, it is less straight forward than you describe.

• Knorpel versus Bein

The usage of palatoquadrate in English and Palatoquadratum in German can be considered as nominalization of an adjective. In case of Os quadratum, the term Quadratum is a nominalization of the adjective of the full expression. This means that the adjective is used as noun. In Latin the gender of the adjective is the same as the gender of the noun, e.g. Os (neuter), quadratum (neuter). During the history of the English language, nouns or adjectives eventually lost their gender. So palatoquadrate has not a gender. So palatoquadrate can be a nominalization of palatoquadrate bone or alternatively of palatoquadrate cartilage. In Latin, these would be rendered as os palatoquadratum and cartilago (feminine) palatoquadrata (feminine) NOT palatoquadratum. In older German publications see Google books the expression Cartilago palatoquadrata is used. In case you would nominalize Cartilago palatoquadrata, the resulting term would be palatoquadrata not palatoquadratum. In German the ending -um or -a clearly indicates the gender, while English obscures this. So, English palatoquadrate can not always be rendered in German Palatoquadratum as Palatoquadratum would refer to a possible noun of neuter gender, not of feminine gender. This can however be solved by using the expression Cartilago palatoquadrata instead. Compare the difference between Frontale for Os frontale and Frontalis for Musculus frontalis. You can't use Frontale to refer to the Musculus frontalis. However, in both cases, this can be solved by using the complete expression, instead of the nominalization.

To conclude: All reverts made by you in the articles Os quadratum, Os quadratojugale and Schuppenbein are absolutely unnecessary. With kind regards, Wimpus (Diskussion) 21:17, 29. Apr. 2014 (CEST)

Wimpus:

• Omitting “os”

In an extensive scientific paper on mammals, birds and dinosaurs I would always use the short forms. Whether the long form with “os” or the short form without “os” are used, generally depends rather upon the subject than upon the taxonomic group. In zoological and paleontological literature on mammals and birds also the short forms are often (if not mainly) used. Since there are no further semantic differences between the terms “Frontale” and “Os frontale” than the absence or presence, respectively, of the word “os”, the coexistence of both terms in osteological teminology may not cause too much confusion, as long as only one of both variants is used throughout a given text. Additionally, IMO the former, shorter form improves the readability of the text. This is why I always will use the short form.

• Spelling

OK, there may be some cases in which there are multiple, however very similar, possibilities of spelling. Nevertheless this does not apply to the three terms discussed here: Quadratum, Quadratojugale, and Squamosum (and in the article Os quadratojugale several German books are listed as references!). In those individual cases cited above by you, a use of in-text references in order to attest the „correct“ (or at least officially recommended) spelling may be appropriate. However, the article Vordeckel appears somewhat underreferenced an needs revison, anyway.

• Knorpel versus Bein

Language is dynamic, and this applies to scientifc terminology too. In contrast to the English ones, the original latin suffixes are still present in the German osteologic/anatomic terms even in cases in which they were actually grammatically wrong. The German word “Palatoquadratum” almost always refers to a cartilaginous structure even though cartilago is feminine in latin and the correct latin term was Cartilago palatoquadrata. That’s how it is. I have learned it that way and I am used to it. In Westheide & Rieger it is used/spelled that way. Apparently it is a widely accepted term of the German zoological terminology and thus there is no need to change it. --Gretarsson (Diskussion) 05:24, 1. Mai 2014 (CEST)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Dein Konto wird umbenannt

Hallo!

Das Entwicklungsteam der Wikimedia Foundation führt einige Änderungen durch, die die Funktionsweise von Benutzerkonten betreffen. Dies geschieht als Teil unserer kontinuierlichen Bemühungen, neue und bessere Werkzeuge (wie Wiki-übergreifende Benachrichtigungen) für unsere Benutzer anbieten zu können. Diese Änderungen bedingen, dass du überall denselben Benutzernamen hast. Dadurch können wir dir neue Funktionen zur Verfügung stellen, die das Bearbeiten und Diskutieren erleichtern und flexiblere Benutzerrechte für Tools ermöglichen. Eine Bedingung dafür ist, dass Benutzerkonten nun über alle 900 Wikimedia-Wikis hinweg eindeutig sein müssen. Weitere Informationen findest du in dieser Ankündigung.

Leider benutzt auch eine andere Person denselben Benutzernamen Wimpus wie du. Um sicherzustellen, dass ihr beide weiterhin auf allen Wikimedia-Projekten arbeiten könnt, haben wir für dich das global eindeutige Benutzerkonto Wimpus~dewiki reserviert, das nur dir gehört. Sollte dir dieser Name gefallen, musst du keine weitere Änderung durchführen. Wenn du jedoch einen anderen Benutzernamen wünschst, kannst du auf dieser Seite einen neuen Namen wählen. Wenn du denkst, dass du bereits alle Benutzerkonten mit diesem Namen besitzt und diese Nachricht fälschlicherweise erhalten hast, besuche bitte die Seite Spezial:Benutzerkonten_zusammenführen, um den Sachverhalt zu prüfen und alle deine Benutzerkonten miteinander zu verbinden, damit eine Umbennung verhindert wird.

Dein Konto wird weiterhin wie gewohnt funktionieren und du wirst als Urheber all deiner bisherigen Bearbeitungen genannt werden, jedoch wirst du beim Login den neuen Benutzernamen verwenden müssen.

Bitte entschuldige die Unannehmlichkeiten. Bei Fragen oder Problemen kannst du dich gern auch an die beiden Stewards DerHexer und Hoo man wenden.

Viele Grüße,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

23:23, 19. Mär. 2015 (CET)

Undo of edits recently made by you

As it becomes clear from this talk page, you have been requested several times to refrain from replacement of germanized/simplified anatomical terms by the latin forms in articles related to paleontology and zoology. Hence I decided to undo all of your recent edits in such articles that fall under these requests. This applies particularly to replacement of “Pubes” by “Ossa pubis”, “Ilia” by “Ossa ilium”, and “Ischia” by “Ossa ischium”, because the forms “Pubes”, “Ilia”, and “Ischia” are used in standard references such as The Dinosauria by Weishampel et al. --Gretarsson (Diskussion) 19:52, 2. Jun. 2019 (CEST)

I have amply demonstrated that some of the forms you and other editors prefer, are actually non-sensical (but the non-sensicality eludes you), while other forms, that make more sense (and adhere more clearly to other nomenclatures) and are in some instances readily available, are ignored (partially due to unfamiliarity with Latin nomenclature). Wimpus (Diskussion) 21:05, 2. Jun. 2019 (CEST)

And you are unambiguously told, that it doesn’t matter, what you personally consider „non-sensical“, and why. Was is so difficult in understanding the words „these forms are used in standard references“? Language is dynamic, and terminology of one field of science may change when adopted by another field of science and then also may deviate in a „non-sensical“ way from its etymological roots. Just accept it, finally! --Gretarsson (Diskussion) 21:24, 2. Jun. 2019 (CEST)