Talk:Kidney

Anatomy: Organs High‑importance

	This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to organs.

Animal anatomy Mid‑importance

	This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 22 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Human kidney. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

On 3 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Human kidney. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 128 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Proposed merge of Kidney (vertebrates) into Kidney

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Move Kidney back to Human kidney, moving now-irrelevant material to a relevant page like Kidney (vertebrates). Klbrain (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Support the idea of moving Kidney to Human kidney, and keeping Kidney (vertebrates) as it is. Note that mammalian kidney wouldn't cover the scope of the content already in Kidney (vertebrates). The two pages could then be linked with hatnotes. Alternatively, we could just add hatnotes to define the scope without moving the articles. Klbrain (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already written an article about mammalian kidney, so I'll translate it into English after I finish some Lua modules. D6194c-1cc (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I've translated my article about mammalian kidney into English. So this article can be focused on human kidney now.
As for renaming into human kidney, it can't be done in a simple way since this article probably have been translated into other languages and those articles might have URL attribution in their edit history.
There are some solutions like copying the article with its full edit history and only then merging Kidney (vertebrates) into this article. But if this discussion will lead to the merge, then let me do it myself in a few steps.
Currently this merge is impossible, because no separate Human kidney article exists (currently its a redirect). D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@D6194c-1cc: One can merge to a redirect (involves removing the redirect code as part of the merge); you're right that a move isn't possible (without a technical request). Klbrain (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving Kidney to Human Kidney, and adding any unique content about nonhuman kidneys to Kidney (vertebrates). IAmNitpicking (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 3 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kidney → Human kidney – Since the last RM, the content has move ever more in the direction of covering humans only, with other articles on both mammals and vertebrates. The 'occasionally helpful' inclusion of human seems relevant here (WP:MEDTITLE); see also the June 2022 merge proposal outcome. Klbrain (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support…? Looking at Mammalian kidney and Kidney (vertebrates) as Klbrain points to, I personally like the idea of this move. In the last RM though, most of the oppose !votes appear to be based on the idea that when people search "kidney" they typically expect to read about the human kidney, and I don't think that position is ruled out by this article being more exclusively human-focused. I have no idea how we're supposed to honestly evaluate the truth of that position, though, or weigh the "occasionally helpful" standard of WP:MEDTITLE, beyond just wild guessing (it seems really odd to me that Leg is general but Arm is human-specific for example). Like, do we have any way of really knowing how many users who search for "kidney" are genuinely trying to find information on the human kidney specifically as opposed to the material in Kidney (vertebrates)? I'd rather end up at what is currently Kidney (vertebrates) but I might be in a small minority there for all I know. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 03:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per similar discussions like Talk:Menstruation (mammal)#Requested move 23 November 2022 which point to precedent that when there are articles on analogous human and non-human medical topics, the human topic is primary. -- Netoholic @ 10:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think "kidney" is more than just medical though, it's biology in general—and there are other parts of the body where the main article is the general version, such as Leg, ~~Hand, or Heart~~. I think with menstruation the choice to have the main article be the human version is obvious, but I'm not so sure about kidneys. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 13:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now that I think of it, I guess Leg is the only relevant example there since the other two don't have separate human articles. This certainly is confusing! 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 13:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now taken the time to find a few others that do fit this pattern: Penis (no tittering now :P), Head, and Nose. All of these, like Leg, have separate human articles with the "default" article covering the general case. Why not Kidney? 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 04:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely a mixed-bag if you look at the Category:Human anatomy and subcategories, so I'm not going to cherry-pick counter-examples. Our standard should be that the human anatomy article be primary when there are separate/analogous articles, since this is an encyclopedia for humans (see WP:MEDTITLE for language already to that effect "The word human is usually omitted in titles..."). Far more often than not, readers are seeking information on their own anatomy and so making them jump through hoops to find it is not acceptable. That standard should be applied to the articles that you listed that don't conform, this way meets more of the WP:CRITERIA. Having non-human articles at primary leads to WP:ASTONISHment. -- Netoholic @ 03:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you and Klbrain have clashing interpretations of WP:MEDTITLE, as I think do many participants in these sorts of debates. They're emphasizing the "occasionally helpful" clause here while you're emphasizing the "usually omitted" clause—but I'd say we should all remember that neither "occasionally" nor "usually" make an absolute rule either way. What I think is that (a) "kidney" is not exclusively a medical topic but rather touches on vertebrate biology in general, so we shouldn't overemphasize WP:MEDTITLE, and (b) even if we do look to WP:MEDTITLE here, by using language like "occasionally" and "usually" it gives us some wiggle room that lets us weigh "kidney" in particular regardless. You seem to be making the case that any article which touches on human anatomy should always foreground the human article when there is a separate one, which I don't think is really supported by WP:MEDTITLE even if this page was exclusively medical in nature.

Beyond this, I don't see what means we have to truly know that "far more often than not, readers are seeking information on their own anatomy," especially as a blanket statement about any anatomical article. If someone came here concerned about their kidneys, I think it's at least as likely that they would search for e.g. Kidney failure. I also know that when I type "kidney" into the search bar, I want to read Kidney (vertebrates) (which does shine a light on my own anatomy, after all, just not in the same way as a Human kidney article would). I'm sure there are other people out there like me. But all of us are engaged in what I called "wild guessing" above when we make these kinds of arguments—without some kind of hard evidence about traffic patterns it just comes down to everyone's variant gut feelings, and I don't see how we could ever come to a consensus that way. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 04:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mesocarp: While my background (bias) is from medicine, my view is that the Kidney article should indeed cover all species, and not just one. That's why I'd rather have one article to have kidneys in general (perhaps a merge of Mammalian kidney and Kidney (vertebrates)), then a subarticle to discuss the special case in one species (such as Human kidney). Note that I don't feel strongly about the proposal; I was actually just closing the earlier merge proposal, with cascading consequences. Klbrain (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Klbrain Thanks for clarifying. I'll strike the opening of my post there since it sounds like it misrepresents your position somewhat, although it does sound like we would both prefer that the "Kidney" article be general in any case. Do you personally feel this move proposal is something of an unfortunate necessity, seeing as you only started it following from the earlier proposed merge? From the debates around other articles like this it does strike me that the desire to separate the "human" and "general" versions of these sorts of articles does seem to generate a lot of discord. 🍉◜◞ↂ🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 09:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mesocarp: My personal view is indeed that the proposal is an unfortunate necessity. I'd prefer a world where, say, the contents of Mammalian kidney were at Kidney, then (because the topic is large and important), relevant subtopics from it. The current contents of Kidney are unduly human and hence don't match the title. Klbrain (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Anatomy has been notified of this discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Animal anatomy has been notified of this discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Providing some context. There is a long history of debates on this topic and my personal opinion is that the general WP principles of least astonishment and having enough content to justify a split are relevant. The amount of non human content is generally the problem when discussing a split; because of these and other reasons, the human/non human split/merge does tend to differ article by article. Regarding this topic, I contributed to the earlier discussion and you can see my thoughts above. Contributors to these discussions need to remember that the actual problem of a human centric medical and anatomic space on wikipedia, which is definitely a problem that we face, needs to be solved be editors working in those areas; sadly, long debates about titles (which have previously occurred in many spaces) generally don't result in much if any new content being added :(. In my ideal world we'd have these discussions because there's heaps of well sourced information written about the topics in general that's been added, thereby justifying a split. Tom (LT) (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, there is almost nothing to split in the current article. Mammalian kidney covers all about anatomy and function, evolution is covered by the kidney (vertebrates) article. Information about genes is written human-specific by human-specific sources. Diseases and diagnosis are described in human context. Culture section is human-specific, too, as I understand.
The only thing that surely must be removed from current article is the kidneys as food. Kidneys in context of culinary has nothing to do with biology, but I can't find reliable sources describing kidneys as food that don't describe specific region of the world. D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:CONCISE. This move seems completely unnecessary to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just reminding that in case of move, it should be done safely by forking and making this article a redirect, because many articles in other languages may have link to this article in edit history as attribution. Just moving and creating redirect will break attribution in case if other article will be moved here afterwards. D6194c-1cc (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or forking by moving and copying the contents here with attribution in the edit history, and then replacing them by a redirect. D6194c-1cc (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lugnuts in the last RM as well as per WP:ASTONISH and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. –Davey2010^Talk 20:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since many think that there is no need to move the page, I changed main definition to be human-specific. Previous definition was misleading, since it attempted to describe human kidneys in vertebrate context. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Multilobar" is incorrect. It should say "multilobular". 2001:1970:5CDB:F900:F006:B3AC:20D0:7E5C (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: It is multilobar: having multiple lobes. "Multilobular" is having multiple lobules. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this article be titled "Human kidney?"

This article is about human kidneys specifically, but is simply titled Kidney. This title is counterintuitive and somewhat misleading, but was still not changed after this discussion.

If Wikipedia's article about the human brain followed this naming convention, it would be titled Brain and the article about non-human brains would be titled Brain (animals) instead of Brain. Jarble (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3D model of kidney

It would be very nice to have 3D model of the Kidney, so that people can explore it from thier prefered angle; I uploaded this one. But it was not accepted what would need to be changed/updated about the model before it would be acceptable for the article?

Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]