Talk:Histology

message: The use of the term 'thin section' is incorrect. In histology, a wide range of section thicknesses are used. For light microscopy, sections are often 1 or 2 microns. However, for transmission electron microscopy (TEM), sections of biological tissue are typically 60 nanometers thick (0.06 microns). To call a 1 micron thick sample in histology 'very thin' is not correct.
The above is misleading. 1um for paraffin sections is indeed 'very thin' and very difficult to obtain unless absolutely expert at the craft. You just have to understand the nature of the different modes of histological preparations. Tissue fopr electron microscopy is embedded in hard plastics that are very easy to section extremely thin. Paraffin is much softer and delicate and so harder to obtain "thin" sections.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.46.238.11 (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Thin' sections

message: I have removed the external link to www.visualhistology.com, as it appears to be spam. (Advertising for a DVD set.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Commercial external link

message: I've just created thin section, which is the commonly used term in optical mineralogy and petrology, where thin sections of rock are ground into sections for microscope work. I notice this article includes a detailed description of the preparation of tissue thin sections, and I wonder if it is worth either including a link, disambiguation or even some sort of partial merge of the material. So as a gauge, how widespread is the use of the actual words thin section in medicine? Jon 12:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, cheers for that, I will leave it as it is then  :-)  Jon 14:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical use of the term ''thin section'' 

message: On this note, the article attempts to give some kind of Greek word etymology, but it doesn't actually tell the reader what the prefix means in Greek. I'd like to know actually.
74.99.19.249 00:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Histology meaning? 

message: Histography is probably never going to be more than a stub or dictionary definition without repeating content from this page.  I say copy the sentence here and redirect.  --Selket Talk 11:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Histography 

message: I suggest this article need to be split into histology and microtomy. Also it's in bad need of a history section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uranium-junkie (talk • contribs) 05:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggesting splitting this artical 

message: Dear  volunteers  of Wikipedia
I ( Ortwin  Bock ) have just published courtesy of the on-line journal 'Research' 
     'A history of the development of histology up to the end of the nineteenth century'
        http://www.labome.org/research/A-history-of-the-developement-of-histology-up-to-the-end-of-the-nineteenth-century.html
           ISBN: 2334-1009
Would you consider adding it to the entries under the heading 'Histology' ?
Yours  sincerely
Ortwin  Bock      ortwinbock@iafrica.com  
41.132.116.52 (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  history of histology 

message: Increasingly, histological study of 100my BP fossils are being published. For example, "Tuberculosis-like respiratory infection in 245-million-year-old marine reptile suggested by bone pathologies" June 2018 Royal Society Open Science 5(6):180225. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.180225
Over a hundred published papers claiming actual survival of endogenous biological materal are cataloged and linked to here. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10126.61766
The Histology entry currently has no reference to fossils. Is it time to consider adding such a section, or at least a mention somewhere? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host  (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should there be a "Histology on Fossils" section? 

message: I removed the subsection labeled "Histology art" (copied below). This clearly did not belong under the heading "Artifacts", and I don't think a blog post called "I heart histology" is a good WP source. I have no doubt that there could be a section on histology and art, and interactions between the two, but I don't think this is it. Clearly this can be put back if people disagree with me. Waughd (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Histology art 

message: Histologist redirects here.  The Occupational Outlook Handbook classifies histologists and histopathologists as Medical scientists, and classifies the various sorts of technicians as Medical and clinical laboratory technologists and technicians.  It's good to include occupational information (general education/employment/income information) in articles about occupations.
Also, this edit has some UK job titles, and we should check to see that nothing was lost when it was reverted.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Histology as an occupation 

message: I'm beginning to think that the table of "Common laboratory stains" should be removed. All of those stains have their own page, and are also described in the main Staining page. Certainly the Histology page should mention some of the major ones, but it also needs more sections on basic histological techniques, including microscopy, cytology, etc. I was hoping to get some thoughts on this? Waughd (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep - I would keep the table on common lab stains and ensure the article refers to the main page on that subject. Always useful to have a general overview without having to open other articles. And I agree that we should add other sections on basic histo techniques! Spyder212 (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   I missed your comment on this part until I went back to look at the table. Just to be clear, I was only talking about removing the table, not the text on stains on the page. If you think we should keep the table, it will need some help. For instance, Hematoxylin and Eosin are on separate lines of they table, they should really be combined into just H&E stain. I don't think Orcein is a "common laboratory stain" (although I don't know we define what a common stain is). If you think we should keep it, what about simplifying the headings to make it "stains" "target" "common use"? As the table exists now I don't think it's helpful. The text on staining needs help too. I think what needs to be conveyed is that there are different stains to highlight different things (i.e general morphology (H&E), Prussin Blue (iron), etc. ) Waughd (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   I took a look at the section again, and I agree. We should keep some text on staining, but the table can be removed. After all, most of those stains aren't that common. Spyder212 (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   OK, I will remove the table, and work on improving/organizing the text for staining. Waughd (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Common laboratory stains" section, remove? 

message: The lead contains an extensive list of job titles related to the field of histology: "The trained personnel who prepare histological specimens for examination are histotechnicians, histotechnologists, histology technicians (HT), histology technologists (HTL), medical laboratory technicians, or biomedical scientists, and their support workers." Is this absolutely necessary? When I research them up, most seem equivalent in terms of work accomplished, i.e. histotechnician, histology technician, histology technologist. I believe including it lower down in the body would be better, perhaps with individual descriptions of their tasks if any are different. Spyder212 (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I would move them now, but it's not clear where they should go (maybe in a new section called "overview" that could go into more stuff than the lede?). I think those terms listed are mostly used in the medical field, so maybe they should be part of histopathology? Waughd (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   I looked over some articles and there doesn't seem to be any clear pattern to include this type of information. I like the idea of creating an overview section, although some might argue that the lead is actually an overview of the topic. Maybe we could create a section specifically on "Occupations" and include the info on personnel there. And no worries for the reverts and edits- that's what Wikipedia is all about. I honestly had not seen your discussion on the talk page. Spyder212 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   I have no idea of what is best, other than they seem out of place where they are (I didn't add them). Maybe histopathology is the place. Part of the problem is that histology is a broad field, that even includes plants, and the field of medicine has its own terms which are somewhat different than those used in general anatomy. Another solution would be to add a  "medical histology" section that sort of summarizes histology from that view, and could have an occupation section for the jobs? Waughd (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   I think they can still be included in the more general histology article. I agree with adding a "Medical histology" subsection where histopathology is discussed briefly (knowing another article covers that subject, although that article should be improved) with relevant occupations. The lead could then be synthesized. I notice the terms histotechnician and histologist redirect back to the histology page. Spyder212 (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   That sounds good. I agree on the histopathology needing work, most of what is in histopathology is in the histology page (I guess because histopathology is half pathology and histology). The Histology page is (or should be?) ultimately a giant well-annotated redirect that explains the whole, and points to particular. Histologic techniques could be it's own page. Waughd (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personnel working in the field of histology