From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated Stub-class, Low-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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline.


These articles are still little more than stubs, and I would advocate respecting their rights to separate existence and allowing them to evolve. Eponychium could well develop further, in which case reference to Eponychium in Cuticle could be reduced to a link. However, I suspect the majority of readers will arrive at eponychium from cuticle, rather than the other way round, and it is therefore important not to reduce cuticle too far. There is much more to cuticle than just eponychium, and merger will have a negative effect on access to those various topics. Cuticle's chief role is to remain as an index to a number of disparate articles on different types of cuticles. Plantsurfer 09:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with a merge as well. I came to cuticle for info on cuticles, not on the whole thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you. I came to Cuticle for info on plant cuticles. It is a Very Bad Thing to "hide" a short but quality (sources!) article inside a more than crappy stub. Plant cuticle is so far more important and will always be smore important than this stub, entire monographs have been published about it. What can be said about the eponychum? Has so much as a single chapter in a science textbook ever been published about it? A proper disambiguation page is needed here, not a merge. This disambiguation page should be cuticle, to which cuticula should redirect. That way, precision is achieved with minimal fuss. Dysmorodrepanis 13:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this merge. Perhaps have eponychium redirect to cutice, and mention it as an alternative term? There's not a lot to say about simply the human eponychium... I'm not sure it's worth it's own artice. --Lauren0925 23:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Lauren

If there's more to this article than is written, someone should expand it. I think that would solve most of our arguments with merging it. It does make sense that someone who was wanting to look for eponychium would enter cuticle. The cuticle article should be used as a gateway. Perhaps the cuticle article needs to be expanded? --Lauren0925 23:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Lauren

Not expanded, but turned into a disambiguation. "Cuticula" means simply "small/thin skin". Dysmorodrepanis 13:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If the articles were to be merged (imho they shouldn't), it should be under cuticle, not eponychium. Cuticle is the broader term of which eponychium is a specific. Take a look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Cuticle: for the majority of articles referencing cuticle, a redirect to eponychium would be inappropriate. --Shingra 08:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that there shouldn't be merge, I would appreciate if someone expanded this stub though. --IlyaV 11:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC-8)´


I removed the section on animal hooves, because the whole section appeared to be quoted from the cited source. That violates the source's copyright. The article should talk about the use of the term in veterinary medicine, but we need to do this in our own words, citing sources as appropriate.--Srleffler (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)