Talk:anatomical atlas

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

An atlas of anatomy. --EncycloPetey 17:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete Jamesjiao 09:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Knowing the user in question, he's probably created this just for the unusual plural. But hard to judge if it's SoP without a definition. But usually definitionless words get a speedy delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I created this (and others) to demonstrate the need for {{q}} / {{citedterm}}, not for the plural (however, I don’t entirely criticise as unrealistic your inference, Mglovesfun). At the time, I didn’t have the time to give these terms proper entries, hence the {{rfe}}, {{rfp}}, {{rfdef}}, &c. I don’t agree with speedy-deleting definitionless words (that would turn Category:Definitionless words into a {{delete}} category); often the entries in question are for valid terms and contain other useful content (such as, as the category states, “other dictionary-related content, such as translations, synonyms, or attributions”, as well as citations, etymologies, pronunciatory transcriptions, lists of related terms, &c.).
As for anatomical atlas, it is now defined (&c.). It is idiomatic because it shows “a thing’s inner workings” and because “its elements [are intentionally] splayed”, neither of which are facets of meaning that inhere to anatomical or atlas.
† ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

All your quotes pertain to human anatomy, not "a thing's inner workings". I still don't see how an anatomical atlas is any different from an atlas of anatomy. I've seen many example of both and consider the difference merely a matter of wording. --EncycloPetey 15:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I’ve added a 1904 citation of use pertaining to vegetable powders. An anatomical atlas showing only the human epidermis would be a bit limited in its utility. Again, (deprecated template usage) anatomical atlas is idiomatic because it refers to a conspectus that shows “a thing’s inner workings […whose] elements [are intentionally] splayed”, which is not the case for a normal (i.e., geographical) atlas. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you've fully addressed EP's points; if it's true that "atlas of anatomy" has, or can have, the same sense, then it seems that "anatomical atlas" is SOP, and we need an appropriate def at [[atlas]]. (Our current sense #2, "A bound collection of tables, illustrations etc. on any given subject", may be what we need; or, we may want a specific def for this type of atlas.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

But what if that sense only occurs in conjunction with anatomical, anatomy, or similar? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

How similar? And in how close conjunction with? For example, if I'm talking about references I used in an anatomy class, could I refer to one as an "atlas" with no "anatomy"-like word in the same sentence? If such usage is really quite rare, then it might make sense to keep this entry, but have one sense of [[atlas]] be something like "Specifically, an anatomical atlas." —Ruakh_TALK 21:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

@ User:Doremítzwr: The "inner" part is the result of treating anatomy. That's what anatomy is all about. As Ruakh points out, there are plenty of other kinds of atlases. I can find multiple examples of "skeletal atlas", "cerebral atlas", "economic atlas", "social atlas", "historical atlas", "linguistic atlas", "military technical atlas", etc. --EncycloPetey 21:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Both deus and ex machina are used independently, but this doesn’t mean that deus ex machina ought to be deleted. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but not for the reasons you've implied. The term deus ex machina is a set phrase borrowed wholesale from Latin theatrical texts, and so isn't really an analogous case to this one. --EncycloPetey 20:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. If this entry is to be deleted, how will the content currently presented at anatomical atlas be accommodated at atlas? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In at least two ways: (1) ensure there is a definition of atlas suitably written to encompass this idea, (2) include example sentences and/or quotations in which the combination anatomical atlas appears. --EncycloPetey 21:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. If that’s OK with you, feel free to delete the entry for anatomical atlas. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)