Category talk:Histopathology

Please differentiate:

Pathology:

• Histopathology (Microskopic Pathology)
• Gross Pathology (Macroskopic Pathology)

Anatomy:

• Anatomy (Macroskopic Anatomy)
• Histology (Microskopic Anatomy)

Patho 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer keeping simple categories like the ones above, not 1000 subcategories which contain even 2 or 3 pictures per category, before we have a good concept. Now the categorisation system in Histopathology is complex but the used terms e.g. like "Ovary" differeniate not between Histopathology, Gross Pathology, Anatomy or Histology, so it would lead to false categorisations and it is now not easy and cost a lot of time to improve it. This applies to the complete medical category, it is very chaotic. Patho 21:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A new italian wikipathologists group

We just built up a pathologist group into it.wiki with an our "village pump": w:it:Wikipedia: Progetto_Medicina/Saletta_Morgagni. I hope, we'll give some effective contribution here!--Alex brollo 13:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

After three years... here I am again

In 2006, I worked a little about this category, building up the "article matching main subcategories" system. here I am again... yesterday our lab got (we were waiting for it too long!) a new digital microscope, so I can contribte again with images coming from a small Pathology Department and from daily diagnostic work. :-)

In the meantime, I'll take a good look to presently used categorization system (I can't remember it in its details!), and I'll put the new images into their best place. Then I'll begin to add something new. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 14:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Rethinking categorization

@Patho: After many years I'd like to add here some experience about categorization from wikisource experience (book categorization is very complex too!). It.wikisource uses an axial, fully-populated approach.

Unluckely I can't find into Commons dynamicpagelist extension, that IMHO is strictly needed to simplify category tree and allowing an effective search of pages "by categorization axes". Is here some gadget/tool to get category intersection? If it is not, what is the rationale for avoiding to implement such a tool? Perhaps server overload, given the very large number of Common's files?

Just an example: imagine to categorize files for two axes: topography (say 100 differents topographies) and morphology (say 200 different pathological lesions) = 300 categories. Possible intersection between two of them are 30000. Using an "axial categorization" only 700 different categories are needed, and any intersection could be found. Adding different axes, the gain in efficiency grows fastly.

Without a tool to get category intersection, the only alternative is IMHO to define a rigid tree of subcategories (level 1: topography; level 2: morphology.....) and to state rigid rules for category names mirroring exactly the category tree. (i.e. Human histopathology, brain; Human histopathology, brain, glioblastoma; .... ). --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 12:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)