Talk:Human lung

A number of other articles have been merged here

Proposed merge with Development of human lung

Article is small in size and there is no need to be separated from the main article; this is needless fragmentation. It would be a benefit to readers to have this content on the same page, and would improve the overall quality of the article. Article could be re-expanded at a later date if needed. LT910001 (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support – Other subjects seem to have included on their page a section on development so separate page seems a deviation. Iztwoz (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No opposition - shall merge. Iztwoz (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Borders of the lung

Needlessly fragmented, and article contains essential information (eg where the lungs anatomically start and end) that could easily be integrated into the main article. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits

It's great and very enjoyable to have some collaborative editing Iztwoz and Plumpy Humperdinkle. I'm just starting this topic so we can somewhere to talk about the page while we're editing... it's quite hard to follow the history with so much editing going on! So:

• Good idea to reinsert the hatnote, as you point out it's very consistent with other articles
• I've moved the 'respiratory system' to the 'structure' section as that is about the structure of the respiratory system, contained within the lung
• Trimmed & merged the two see also sections, hope that's ok

Cheers & looking forward to your replies & comments, I'm wondering if we shouldn't go through a similar process of improving other 'x/human x' articles in the future. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. Appreciate the tips on your user page to revise articles and dejargonize them. I usually don't have much time to spend on here, but certainly glad to take part in the collaborative process. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tom - I'll make an effort to 'contribute' on a Friday. I'm not too sure about merging circulation here. What do you think about merging more structural items such as Base, Apex and Root? cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Propose a list and I'd support most of them. With respect to pulmonary circulation, I think it's much more straightforward for readers to have the content covered here. Abstracted in a single article it's quite difficult to explain, but given the context of the lung article, I think it's better covered here. With merging articles, there are some clinically or anatomically significant small articles (such as lung hilum) whereby the content might get lost in the main article if it is merged. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I have combined some sections together to make this more readable, and have separated 'lobes and fissures' from 'shape' (I think that is what the two sections, originally from Right lung and Left lung, were hinting at.

In the next week I'll also be expanding this article with some content from Respiratory tract, especially re. microanatomy, rationalise some of the function section, and continue to remove duplicated content in the 'structure' section and subsections. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to say lingula is on right lung in table - going out now! --Iztwoz (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, titles were backwards. OK I'm all done for today too. More to follow tomorrow. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Would like you to consider the need of the table for the segments - my own view is that its intrusive and of no interest at all for a general reader. Feel it would be better just to refer to the numbers in each lung. Lobes are already made clear by prose.? --Iztwoz (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the joys of Wikipedia, somehow having to straddle the fine line between primary school-aged readers and technically literate university graduands :/. We should mention segments because they're a notable concept. If we have consensus to mention them, we should do it as a table and make mention of lobes, because I think the format of a table is much clearer way of presenting that form of information than discursive text. I've subdivided the table by lobe as lobes are divided into segments, so without mentioning that it's a little confusing.--Tom (LT) (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Also - if lobes and fissures were split between the two sections right lung and left lung imo would be better than mixing them up together. ? (just seen that they were originally there)--Iztwoz (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Pulmonary circulation

"Pulmonary circulation" (ie blood supply to the lungs) fits readily into Human lung#Blood supply and Human lung#Development. This:

• reduces needless fragmentation
• gives readers the benefit of putting all the information in one place
• provides context to a lot of the statements in the article
• reduces (in my view) a particularly confusing division for readers into a separate article

With this in mind, I propose this merge. Tom (LT) (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

OK on second thought I withdraw this merge for the moment. Pulmonary circulation is a concept in physiology and too many articles link to it at the moment. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. It does seem that making edits that seem simple at first glance can be quite complicated by the degree of interconnectedness in the background of many articles here. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Implying causal relationships

Admittedly, I am having difficulty not implying causal relationships while still making the article accessible to the layperson. I look forward to everyone's revisions of my edits. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)