Talk:Cranial nerves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Cranial nerve)
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Why are cranial nerves referred to with a roman numeral after their name?
A: It is convention in much of medical and anatomical literature that cranial nerves are followed by their number. We follow that convention here.
Q: Why was my mnemonic removed?
A: A list of medical mnemonics exists where these can be recorded. Wikipedia is not a textbook (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK) and not a repository for such material (WP:NOTREPOSITORY).
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.
 
WikiProject Neuroscience (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine / Neurology (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force (marked as Top-importance).
 

Why[edit]

Why did you take the "See also" links to the other cranial nerves off of the pages for the individual articles for each nerve? I know that the list on the "cranial nerve" article already has the list but why force people who want to go from one cranial nerve aritcle to another to take an additional step in order to get to that information. The articles about the varioius cranial nerves form a tighly bound unit and making it easy to go from one to the other with a simple "See also" list at the bottom is not messy methinks. Qaz 01:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There. I created the template en:Template:cranial_nerves which solves this problem more elegantly. Acceptable? Alex.tan 04:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I like that. It is acceptable to me at least. Not sure if it has to appear on the original "Cranial nerves" article since that makes the same list appear there twice though, but I like having it on all the others. Qaz
Qaz, basically I thought the list of 12 cranial nerves was too long to include in each article in the way it was formatted. It seemed that it would be better to link to the main cranial nerves article, which then linked to each cranial nerve. I was thinking that a template would be a better way in the future to provide a connection between each cranial nerve article, and I see that Alex.tan has gone ahead and implemented this. I think it looks great. Cheers, —Brim 16:04, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Cranial nerve or Cranial nerves[edit]

This is not really important. Normally would be singular per WP:Naming conventions (plurals); but arguably this depends upon how the guideline is interpreted. Also some consistency with spinal nerve would be good. Lesion (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well as per the exceptions on the naming conventions page both the articles should be pluralized. You seldom speak about a cranial nerve, but rather the cranial nerves in general or a specific one such as the facial nerve. The same isn't really true for spinal nerves which are much more similar in structure and function, so either we leave that article as singular or change it as well. I personally won't object to either, but I'm inclined to agree with the move of cranial nerves.
CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
For historical value (ie in case there are any proactive future editors who may make this move), I also think that, as CFCF states, the plural name is more appropriate. --LT910001 (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Notes[edit]

Tranche 1[edit]

Tranche 2[edit]

Tranche 3[edit]

I'm very enthusiastic about this article and hopefully it's getting closer to a comprehensive article with all our changes. There are still one or two things I'd like to do: --LT910001 (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Expand 'history' section (will do this myself)
  • Slightly rephrase 'Function' sections to give more emphasis to physiological function.

CFCF, GA nominator, is there anything else, including citations and fixing up the bibliography, that you think needs doing? --LT910001 (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the article is looking really good, there are some referencing issues which should be easy to solve, I will look into them. Apart from that the only section that might need fleshing out is the history one. I will see what I can come up with. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
LT910001 Also there is mention of a Lateral colliculus, do you mean superior or inferior instead? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Naming[edit]

In preparation for the (eventual) review, I will standardise the phrasing of cranial nerves in this article. I propose nerves are referred to:

  • First by their common name, in plural singular, and followed by a hindu-arabic roman numeral
  • Branches to be named in full, referred to in singular, without cranial nerve number.

For example:

  • "The facial nerve (CN7 emerges from..." "The facial nerve (VII) emerges from..."
  • The mandibular branch of the facial nerve branches at..."

Input/feedback? Ping CFCF, Lesion. Whatever the outcome, I think we ought to put this in an FAQ section at the top of this page so that editing is consistent. --LT910001 (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As you probably are aware, normally cranial nerves are singular in anatomy texts, but it is probably more correct to refer to them as paired consistently. I would Roman numerals since that is more common for cranial nerves too. Lesion 08:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
That's true, I have altered the above proposal accordingly and the article uses roman numerals so I'll stick with that. I've added two 'FAQs', one regarding this, and one regarding mnemonics. --LT910001 (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the naming convention, but would suggest that the trigeminal branches also be followed by V1 V2 etc., seeing as this seems to be the convention in text-books. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 09:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
That does seem to be the convention; I have changed accordingly. I've removed the singular/plural as I think it may be excessively nitpicking to not much benefit, and also hard to keep in mind while writing: --LT910001 (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Guidelines:

  • Cranial nerves and their branches should be written using their full name.
  • Cranial nerves and the three main branches of the trigeminal should be referred to with roman numerals after being mentioned.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cranial nerves/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seppi333 (talk · contribs) 23:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)



Discussion[edit]

Figured this nom has waited in the queue long enough... hehe. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 23:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

After going through the entire page, I found a few clauses that I was unable to fix due to ambiguity in the prose:

  1. The accessory nerve (XI) is considered either a cranial nerve or a spinal nerve which emanates level with the brain-stem.[1] (Not sure what this means.)
Yes check.svg Done - and arrises on level of the brain-stem.
  1. This is due to impairment in the lateral rectus muscle, which is innervated by the nerve.[1] (Which nerve?)
Yes check.svg Done - innervated by the abducens nerve.
  1. This jerk is a reflex involving an induced twitch in muscles involved in closing the jaw when upon tapping on the jaw. (No clue what that last part means.)
Yes check.svg Done - gives rise to twitch in some of the muscles involved in closing the jaw, and occurs when the jaw is tapped from a precise angle.
  1. The glossopharyngeal nerve (IX) is almost exclusively sensory in supplying five afferent nuclei of the brainstem, covering the oropharynx and back of the tongue with innervation.[1] (This sentence is written rather oddly. Not entirely sure what was meant.)
Yes check.svg Done - The glossopharyngeal nerve (IX) is almost exclusively sensory and supplies five afferent nuclei of the brainstem, providing sensory innervation to the oropharynx and back of the tongue.

There were a lot of misplaced semicolons, missing commas/periods, and run-on sentences, but I think I managed to fix these problems. In any event, I'll pass the prose criteria once these 4 sentences are fixed. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 01:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Seppi333:} Just in case you missed it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@CFCF: Sorry for the late reply, been really busy over the weekend. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 02:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Passes the minimal GA MOS requirements Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Adequately referenced. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) All sources are medical, many are current. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) None. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Extensively covered. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
    Notes Result
    No bias. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    Notes Result
    Obviously stable. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All tagged, most PD. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) All captioned Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Pass Pass Passes GA criteria.

Criteria[edit]

Additional Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Thanks for the review, I am currently away for a few more days, but when I get home on Wednesday (20th) I will take on the comments, and I think I may be able to improve some minor things as well. 18:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)