Start a new talk topic.
|This is Biolprof's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Biolprof.|
Hi, I see you may be having some issues with reference formatting e.g. 1. They can be painful. Here are links to a few tools that might help: Help:Citation_tools. I tend to use the "Cite" option at the top of the page I'm editing. From "Templates" select "cite journal", drop a Pubmed ID into the correct field and hit the magnifying glass. All the fields should be automatically filled for you, hit "Insert" and you're done. I hope this helps! --Paul (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Paul! I have used that template in the past, but stupidly forgot that clicking the magnifying glass was the secret to filling in the empty fields, so I used the citation expander tool instead, which I had never used before. When it had not automatically completed the citation the next day, I pushed it to the head of the queue, but wasn't sure if it would work. I was also a little confused by the formatting of most of the refs in this article in parentheses instead of superscripts. I found a formatting note somewhere indicating that either is acceptable (which I did not know), but articles should not be mixed. It was late and I was tired and as a less experience editor, I was hoping someone who might be faster and care more might fix it later, or figured I would get back to it eventually. Best, Biolprof (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I completely understand. The mixed reference formatting explains why the ref you added is #1. Which I thought was odd at the time. Damned if I want to sort that mess out. I can leave that for my esteemed lncRNA colleagues on the other side of the Tasman, or even better, a bot.--Paul (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
July 6: St Louis Wiknic
Upcoming event at the WWI Museum in Kansas City
Hello! I would like to invite you to a Wikipedia editathon about WWI and Dissent on November 22 at the National World War I Museum in Kansas City. Join us for the U.S. branch of this international event as we write more social history from the era around WWI into Wikipedia! All editors are welcome, contributors to topics around WWI other than Dissent also encouraged! Food and drinks will be supplied by the WWI museum, Sadads (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The optic nerve on a technical level is part of the CNS. But also on a technical level the first part of the spinal nerves are also part of the CNS as they emerge from the spinal cord surrounded by all three meninges. Actually, technically, the optic nerve is not a cranial nerve at all, but a brain tract. But for convenience and consensus gross anatomists consider all of the cranial nerves to be part of the PNS. And if you check the PNS Wikipedia page, it states that all of the CNs are part of the PNS. My concern is as an anatomy prof. Actually, this whole CN page contains much information that is not accurate or is very confusing. Seems overwhelming to me at the moment. As an aside, I do know CNs as just published a book with Wiley on them.
optic nerve more Thanks for your message. There is really no conflict - actually there is no good definition even of what a cranial nerve is (e.g., the accessory nerve comes from the spinal cord). So the term is really a term of convenience and rests a lot on historical use of the term. If you want more details order the book listed now as the first reference on the CN page (Vilensky et al). That is my book and can be preordered now with availability in May. I do know it is a bit expensive. This was not my choice. I wanted a softback book that was accessible to people interested in the cranial nerves. Wiley thought they could sell it as a textbook. I have my doubts.