This redirect 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
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
This redirect 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
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I went ahead and moved this page from Vas deferens to ductus deferens via WP:BOLD. Vas deferens is the old term, and though still used, the modern anatomical term is ductus deferens and is used in clinical settings. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Invinciblewalnut: I'm surprised that you moved this boldly without discussion, given that it has existed as the more common name, vas deferens, for many year. As you know from WP:MEDMOS, Most articles on human anatomy use the international standard Terminologia Anatomica (TA) as a basis for the English title of an article. Editor judgment is needed for terms used where there is a very clearly used common name, in non-human anatomy, and in other problematic areas. The issue here is a vas deferensthat ductus deferens is the anatomical name in humans but not in other species (as can be seen from the references), and I contend that vas deferens (or simly vas) is the more common name even in humans (hence vasectomy). Hence this is a case where Terminologia Anatomica should, not be used. Hence, I contest the move; self-revert then formally propose if you still think that it is warranted? Klbrain (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the writing slip there ... I've corrected by statement above (see my strikeout). Thanks for revert and the starting discussion linked below. Klbrain (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply