| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The content of Renal circulation was merged into Kidney on 16 September 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| 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. |
Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2024
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= 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)
Not done: It is multilobar: having multiple lobes. "Multilobular" is having multiple lobules. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be titled "Human kidney?"
[edit]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)
3D model of kidney
[edit]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)
Likely AI-generated content
[edit]Hi; I've tagged this article with the AI generated template as I believe Parker.Josh's edits (from earlier this year) are AI; on other articles they have done things like leave in chatbot responses in diffs, and their text also contains other less blatant signs of LLM use. Thus all of their additions here also need review for accuracy, hallucinations, source-to-text integrity, and synthesis/editorializing. I am not a subject matter expert here so this review should probably be done by someone who is. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
