Talk:Kidney

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elmidae (talk | contribs) at 13:22, 4 July 2022 (→‎Requested move 22 June 2022: don't think so). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

WikiProject iconAnatomy: Organs B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to organs.
WikiProject iconAnimal anatomy C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shivani622.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Behavior 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 17 June 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trorstad (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Gonet99 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can somebody explain how the kidney article is related to plants? I think there is a confusion with the bud article. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vertebrate kidneys

What kind of kidneys does this article describes? The basic definition is: "The kidneys are two reddish-brown bean-shaped organs found in vertebrates". But vertebrates can have pronephros, mesonephros and metanephros. Moreover metanephros is different in mammals, reptilians and birds. And only the metanephros of mammals is usually bean-shaped. But not always, as one of horse's kidneys is heart-shaped.

This article is about the human kidneys. But it made so that it looks like it describes vertebrate and mammalian kidneys too. It's a huge original research as I think. Separate article must be created to describe the kidneys of vertebrates, the kidneys of mammals and the human kidneys. -- D6194c-1cc (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I changed the basic definition and made a separate Wikidata item Q111907436 for the vertebrate kidney. -- D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to rename the article to Human kidney but my actions were reverted. Could somebody rename my sandbox page to Kidney page? User:D6194c-1cc/sandbox/Kidney. I plan to translate full article but help would be appreciated since writing in English is not so easy for me. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Praxidicae: You reverted my edit: [1]. But the sources cannot contain information that vertebrate kidneys are bean-shaped or about their color. Please revert my citation request back. It was absolutely correct. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's literally in the first paragraph of "Structure"[2]. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This source is about human kidney, see upper categories: Health -> Human Body -> Body Systems -> Kidney & Urinary Tract. It can't be used to describe vertebrate kidneys at all. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is certainly very biased towards human kidney's, but that's probably reasonable given the average reader's interests. I suggest that if you have more content to add regarding the kidney in other animals, then Kidney#Other animals has plenty of scope for expansion. Once it's large enough there would certainly be a case for a split. Otherwise, I suggest refining the structure to address the over-generalizations.
It's not biased. It's about human/mammalian kidneys but the first sentence is misleading and says nothing that could be applicable to all vertebrate kidneys. And only the "Other animals" section has some common information about kidneys in other animals. Almost nothing said abut bird kidneys and about reptilian kidneys. Mammalian kidneys are different between species. They vary in lobules count and papilla form (fused or not fused). For example a cow has visually lobulated kidneys. Can we say that they are bean-shaped? What about differences in structure and function of kidneys between animal classes? --D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your category argument, there are many ways of view the 'hierarchy', which is really more of a web; for example, Category:Animal anatomy:Category:Urinary system:Category:Kidney is also a valid current reading of the categories. Klbrain (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about category, it's about wrong information in the definition. The definition creates an illusion that it describes the vertebrate kidney, but it describes the human kidney. And all information in the preamble is about human kidneys, preamble says nothing about other animals or about their kidney types. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has created Kidney (vertebrates). In my opinion this matches the intended scope of Kidney and I have suggested a merge — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My new article is about vertebrate kidneys and is specialised on animals (vertebrates) without human context. If you compare the preambles of those two articles you will see all the difference between human and general kidney description. This article must be transformed into the human kidney, because is mostly describes the human kidney with a little bias to the mammalian kidney (since human kidney is mammalian, too). The only section about vertebrate kidneys is Kidney#Other_animals. The whole article is made upside down. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kidney structure image in the article

KidneyStructures PioM

The arteries and veins are illustrated as a ladder in the cortex. But as I read before it must be some kind of a tree: the interlobar (between kidney lobes) artery -> arcuate artery (between cortex and medulla) -> interlobular arteries (between cortical lobules) -> afferent arterioles (they supply nephrons). The image made wrong. It would be hard to explain the meaning of the 12 number. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, the veins are located close to the arteries. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Kidney (vertebrates) into Kidney

I find it hard to see if either is a subset of the other. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kidney article is about human kidneys with some little bias to mammals. The Kidney (vertebrates) is about kidneys of other animals without any bias to human kidneys. Those are separate articles like Pregnancy and Pregnancy (mammals). They cannot be merged together. The kidney article made wrong so it looks like it describes vertebrate kidneys, but it doesn't. It would be better to split Kidney into the Human kidney and Mammalian kidney or to rename the Kidney article into the Human kidney. My current work is an article about mammalian kidneys. D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 June 2022

Kidney → Human kidney – The Kidney article describes human kidneys with little bias to mammalian kidneys. A new article about vertebrate kidneys has been created to describe kidneys carefully without any bias towards human or mammals. Human anatomy must be split from other animals because combined articles are highly biased towards human and create misunderstandings or even give wrong information like bean-shaped kidneys in all vertebrates (fishes are vertebrates too). D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@D6194c-1cc: What do you propose should be done with the "main" kidney page? Should kidney (vertebrates) be moved to "kidney"? Should a disambiguation page be created there? Natg 19 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Main page must be transformed to describe human kidney. In fact, most of the article is just about human kidneys. Human kidney is well described with a lot of good quality sources. But information about human kidney cannot be used to describe vertebrate kidneys. For example mesonephric kidneys of fish are not bean-shaped, their nephrons doesn't have the loop of Henle and even some marine marine fish species have aglomerular nephrons.

Some nephrons of fish have non-integrated nephrons. In amniotes metanephric kidneys are also quite different in structure, form and function. Of course, all kidneys are made of nephrons which filter blood, but kidney tissues and structure can differ. Some facts must be correctly attributes to human or other animal classes. For example if the article says that kidneys help to produce vitamin D, then it must be correctly attributed to human according to the source that was used for this information. To say so about amniotes another reliable source is needed because their kidneys can have no such function. Produced hormones can also vary between classes. If we say about erythropoietin than we must attribute information to appropriate animals accordingly to the used source. Renin function is also different in fish compared to mammals. Also mammals are the only class of animals that doesn't have renal portal system in kidneys.

Separate articles about the human kidneys, mammalian kidneys, vertebrate kidneys and nephron must be made. Separate article about human kidneys is very important because kidney is vital organ in human and is related to medicine too. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My question is more of what should be done with "Kidney"? Should it be a page with links to "human kidney" and "kidney (vertebrates)"? Natg 19 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably provide a list of possible names to discuss it. Those are:
I prefer the Human kidney and Kidney variant because it would be enough to place about-distinguish template to the Kidney article and in some future I'll write an article about mammalian kidneys which would have section about human kidneys with the link to the main page. So those article could form a tree with Kidney -> Mammalian kidney -> Human kidney branch. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But if a separated article about kidneys as food would be created then Human kidney, Kidney (vertebrates), Kidney as disambiguation page variant would be better. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:ASTONISH and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. When you think of (a) kidney, most people would assume you mean the human kidney, and the extra dab is not needed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in general for these discussions I think the main page has to satisfy two conditions - (1) the primary topic is what readers expect, and (2) there is enough content to justify a split. I think this meets both criteria. The use of kidneys as a food in particular throughout society in addition to the kidney as an anatomical structure means, I think, that readers would not be astonished to see the primary page of this topic being the general structure. Regardless of the outcome I think we should also acknowledge the great contribution by the nominator writing this article. Tom (LT) (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree think that information about kidneys as food should also be moved to a separate article (something like Kidney (food)). It has no relation to the kidneys in biology context. It's just about nutrition and cooking. Moreover, it is very strange to see the section about kidneys as food in an article that is about human kidneys, even if it doesn't says directly that it is about human. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Tom. We need to be specific in this instance that this page is about human kidneys. Also, move the vertebrate kidney page to "kidney". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spekkios (talk • contribs) 00:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yes, this article really is the kidney article; it is not a "human kidney" article pretending to be a kidney article. The main article should cover the broad range of subtopics. This includes humans and other animals (and yes, history and culture, including food, to some degree), as this article does. The organization of content should follow principles such as Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Broad-concept article. (It should not be based on principles of trying to mirror taxonomic hierarchies such as vertebrate > mammal > human. It should also not use Template:about-distinguish as if it were a substitute for a broad-concept article.) What may not be obvious, though, is that appropriately broad coverage will often result in giving more attention in total to subtopics specific to humans (e.g. human medicine), or to human-oriented coverage of subtopics not technically unique to humans. This is not improper bias toward humans, but in fact is as WP:NPOV requires: treating aspects of the subject with weight proportional to the attention given to them in the aggregate body of sources. An approach pervasively taking care to emphasize comparisons between animals and scrupulously avoiding "bias" toward humans is, in the bigger picture, a narrow point of view of the topic. The general organization I've described is also consistent with articles such as Lung or Heart. It is true that other differently-organized articles exist, and at some point there may be such long detail that the way to achieve summary style is to spin off a separate "human kidney" article, but we are not at that point. The current kidney article does not perfectly achieve the principles I've mentioned (and for that matter, certainly doesn't achieve the difficult ideal of making technical articles understandable), but it's the article with the right general idea. For these reasons I oppose the move.
I also would discourage a full merge, since Kidney (vertebrates) goes into detail which is appropriate for itself, but greater detail than the broader-scoped main article should have. This is not a general opposition to editing how this article summarizes animals, and not an opposition to partial transfer of content from one article to the other. (As a small example, I think having the first sentence describe the function of the kidney, as Kidney (vertebrates) currently does, is more helpful than starting with the shape and color.) Lastly, I applaud the nominator's work on Kidney (vertebrates), and I look forward to your continued contributions in this and other areas. Adumbrativus (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As said below the article has the "Other animals" section which means per the anatomy guidance that this article is about human kidney which pretends to be a kidney article (as we see from the basic definition). The example of an article around human anatomy is Human leg in oppose to Leg as more common article. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Lugnuts. Often, per the anatomy guidance, there's an "other animals" section. But Kidney (vertebrates) is its own article right now. GBFEE (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MEDTITLE: "The word human is usually omitted in titles, but it may occasionally be helpful if non-human references to the structure are common. For example, compare the articles at Leg (including insect legs, robotic legs, etc.) and Human leg. However, if the article is about humans and the reader will expect to find information about humans under that title, e.g., Arm and Pregnancy, then pre-disambiguation of the title is inappropriate." Links to the Kidney page: Special:WhatLinksHere/Kidney. Many of them are from articles on non-human or common topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D6194c-1cc (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • D6194c-1cc, do you mind explaining what you mean by quoting WP:MEDTITLE? The kidney article is about humans and the reader will expect to find information about humans under this title. That's what Lugnuts is arguing. And Adumbrativus highlights this as well, by saying, for example, "What may not be obvious, though, is that appropriately broad coverage will often result in giving more attention in total to subtopics specific to humans (e.g. human medicine), or to human-oriented coverage of subtopics not technically unique to humans. This is not improper bias toward humans, but in fact is as WP:NPOV requires: treating aspects of the subject with weight proportional to the attention given to them in the aggregate body of sources." So my oppose is also "per Adumbrativus" to a degree. I didn't notice before, but I've noticed now that there is an "other animals" section in the article. The existence of that section doesn't mean that the kidney article is not an article that is about humans. Per the anatomy guidance, it's common for articles that are predominantly about humans to have such sections. If there's a dedicated article for other animals and an "other animals" section in the article, then we link to that in that section as "main article" for more information. GBFEE (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose although I understand the reasoning. From a physiology point of view, what is currently at Kidney (vertebrates) is "the kidney article" and this here is an in-depth treatment of a subtopic. However we do have a site-wide habit (spottily observed) of having such search terms land on the human physiology version rather than the generic one, so I don't think there's a call to break from that in this instance. I think the current setup, with a nice long summary of Kidney (vertebrates) and a {{Main}} link there works well. -Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kidney&oldid=1096436942"