Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New neuroanatomy atlas (1960)[edit]

Lawrence 1960 4.2.png

I've uploaded a new atlas to the commons, and a few of the images are very good.
Currently the page covering the images is not complete, although there is a link to the source where captions can be found, and a table of contents displating the different chapters. It is avaible here: User:CFCF/Lawrence
To get an idea of what images there are, it may for now be best to use: commons:Category:Lawrence neuroanatomy
The atlas in question is A functional approach to neuroanatomy, and has lapsed into the public domain.
It offers a simplistic approach, and has a number of images and diagrams which can explain complex topics in a simple manner. --CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Neat! Those are bound to come in handy for a number of articles. Looie496 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Nice. Is there an electronic copy of the plates and associated captions, if one were to aid in the captioning? Also, how did you come by this information? Is there are a service that tracks works that fall out of copyright? ~ Nelg (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Nelg I'm really really sorry to be so late to answer you. Yes the entire book is available online at: HathiTrust. (Ebay: 1967 edition (in copyright)
There are some ways to find out if a book has fallen out of copyright in the US. Books published between 1923-1968 needed to have their copyright renewed, and therefore there are many books that are fairly modern that are public domain.
I've been keeping track of books at HathiTrust, which states in the side-bar to the left is public domain. They have a massive collection of several million books, so I almost feel spoiled for choice going there. Please get in touch if you want to help out captioning the images, it would be enormously helpful. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Neuroscience editathon at the Royal Society, 7 June 2014[edit]

The Royal Society; we'll have a nice view of The Mall

An edit-a-thon on Neuroscience will take place on Saturday, 7 June 2014 from 10:30 to 13:30, see the event page. The form of the event will different from our previous events aimed at scientists, and those with an interest in science, who wanted to learn about editing Wikipedia. This time there will be smaller groups of scientists and experienced Wikipedians who will work together to improve articles. So there will not be the usual workshop-style training, though the scientists attending will certainly come to understand Wikipedia editing processes. We also welcome online participants, and suggestions of important articles in a poor state. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Still places here - see the event page for how to apply on Evenbrite, or sign up online. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Note the new list of RS journal articles that will be released to be freely available online from 6-8 June. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


There are a number of articles on Wikipedia concerning what reflexes are that aren't entirely clear:

As well as an article in AfC now about:

which I've commented on. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about popular press/primary source on Gray matter[edit]

Just putting this out there for your input: Talk:Grey_matter#Source_for_effects_of_child_abuse&pornography. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Psychosurgery and History of psychosurgery[edit]

Hi, not a subject I know a lot about, but two editors are fighting here (as well as elsewhere: Phineas Gage, Deep brain stimulation, Electrical brain stimulation) about the appropriateness of a reference and could benefit from some guidance. --Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've given up on Phineas Gage. I took a quick look at Psychosurgery and History of psychosurgery, and it looks to me like the dispute might fit better at WT:MED, because the issues tend towards the clinical. You might get better help there. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I tried there before coming here, but got no takers... --Randykitty (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I didn't know that. (After the Gage fiasco, I'm not ready to be a taker here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Neurocience At Wikimania 2014[edit]

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I've created a draft, and it can be seen at the link just above. I'd welcome other editors improving upon it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Cool, looks good to me. Looie496 (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I changed the image to an svg file which I think will look much better in the large format the leaflets are going for.
Additionally I had uploaded a high resolution image of a sheep's brain with the cranial nerves labeled, but it has been removed. I will try to sort out why, it might be high enough resolution.
P.S. I will be present at Wikimania, so if you have any suggestions on what to do with the leaflets I will be happy to help (that is if I have time, pretty busy schedule).
-- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I agree with you that svg is better, and I certainly wouldn't want to shortchange the spinal cord. Face-smile.svg I took the liberty of making a further edit, to note that you will be at the meeting. I don't think you really need to do anything with the leaflets. If I understand correctly, there will be some kind of central place where some groups will have booths, but we won't, and the leaflets will just be somewhere where people can pick them up if they want. Like everything Wiki, how much or how little you do is entirely up to you, and is appreciated. Enjoy the conference! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The markup of the actual leaflet is now viewable at the link above. (I'm please with it, although I'm not clear on how wikilinks will work on paper.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for forgetting to mention this, but the deadline to submit your leaflet passed on 1st July. However, if you submit on 3rd of July, then we will still accept your leaflet.
Kind regards,
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Human Brain Development Timeline[edit]

Fix this typo:

This was identified by the process of myelination where the developed ((((( regions axons' )))) were myelinated first while the association areas were still able to develop through adolescence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Human brain development timeline somehow wasn't on my watchlist. I've fixed the sentence in question, but there is a lot of other grunge in that article. Looie496 (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

New article from AfC[edit]

Just a heads up, Edward Roy Perl has just been accepted at AfC if anyone wants to improve it. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


Wiki Education Foundation is hiring two experienced Wikipedia editors for part-time (20 hours/week) positions: Wikipedia Content Expert, Sciences and Wikipedia Content Expert, Humanities. The focus of these positions is to help student editors do better work, through everything from advice and cleanup on individual articles, to helping instructors find appropriate topics for the students to work on, to tracking the overall quality of work from student editors and finding ways to improve it. We're looking for clueful, friendly editors who like to focus on article content, but also have a strong working knowledge of policies and guidelines, and who have experience with DYK, GAN, and other quality processes.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Tail of the ventral tegmental area[edit]

I just created an article on this GABAergic nucleus. I don't normally create articles on brain structures, so I'm not familiar with WP:NEURO's nav temps and cats; I figured I'd just note the page here in the event there's any relevant categories/templates to add or update which I haven't included in the article. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 12:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool! Looks good to me. Looie496 (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Brain size and Human brain size[edit]

An editor recently moved Brain size to Human brain size, and I believe that this requires some discussion. After all, most of the size differences between brains occur between species, not within the human species, although evolution of the human brain is obviously a very important part of the encyclopedic topic. I'm uncomfortable with this move. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually think it might be better to make this species specific. Relationships between brain size and other metrics for humans probably don't hold for many other species. With that in mind, I'm not sure how a general article on animal brain size could be adequately covered due to the massive scope of that topic. A more limited topic like the brain size of hominids would probably be more workable though. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 20:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
He also moved all the animal-related content out to Brain-to-body mass ratio, which is a more appropriate way to look at the issue across species. Perhaps Brain size should redirect there now. But he certainly should have discussed the matter first, & should be told as much. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
If we do go with having a human-specific page, I'd be inclined to flip the body mass ratio page around the other way. In other words, rename Brain-to-body mass ratio as Brain size, making the body mass ratio a major section of that page. I'm basing that on what I suspect readers would first look for in searching for a page, since the ratio is a rather technical term. It would parallel the way we have Human brain as well as a more general page about Brain. We might also want to look at where Evolution of the brain fits into all of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Brain size per se (across species) is not scientifically interesting - obviously an elephant has a bigger brain than a mouse (well, obviously or not, it has). It is the variations in the ratio between species that are interesting. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have already said I support the idea of merging Brain-to-body mass ratio with brain size.. It seems to explain most of the animal part.. And I am supportive of anything that improve the current situation.MicroMacroMania (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A very helpful thing to do here would be to look for reliable sources both for what terminology they use and for how they relate the topic(s) to one another. Are there reliable sources that treat all species with brains together in an overview, or are there not? For this kind of topic, we should especially look at the content guideline about reliable sources on medicine. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Brain-to-body mass ratio and the related Encephalization quotient are well-established topics in biology, and there are plenty of RS, several used in the various articles. Historically, human brain size across genders (female brains are smaller) has a long and dubious history; I'm not sure it's a very active topic these days, or much covered in medicine per se. Johnbod (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey! I reversed all my edits.. Seems like you guess want a discussing first. Anyway I am sorry for that.. Anyway I think there is a talk page going on the page about brain size.. MicroMacroMania (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm personally adverse to having separate human titled articles as most people will be looking for human content, and as John says Brain size on its own is irrelevant. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

When we are having the discussion. we can merge the article about "Brain-to-body_mass_ratio" with the article "brain size", if you think than is a better way to have the topic structured. Most of the stuff about animals deal with that part as you mentioned. I added some more text to the part about "cranial capacity" btw. MicroMacroMania (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I very much think that we need to slow down on the page edits, because we do not yet have a consensus (and frankly, I'm having difficulty following what page has what, at this point). Some editors have said that they don't want to have separate human-titled pages, because readers are only interested in humans anyway. Although I agree that readers are more interested in humans, keep in mind that we have both Brain and Human brain, and there is plenty of encyclopedic content in the former. I take the points that it is the brain-body ratio and not brain size that differs in interesting ways across species, and that both the ratio and the quotient are subjects that are well-sourced. But as I see it, that misses the point. As long as we have redirects from the more technical terms, and have page sections that cover the technical topics in the necessary detail, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't name the pages in terms of "size". Please see WP:UCRN. It seems to me that we are dealing with content that, broadly, falls into two groups (but not with precise boundaries): the basic biology of how brains evolved in animal species, and the specifically human subject of the human brain and how it came about and how it may vary. Both of those two subjects are encyclopedic, and both merit distinct pages here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

To clarify what the controversy was–major articles on anatomy such as thorax, heart etc. didn't mention humans, and covered insects and other animals, just not humans. When it comes to Brain & Human brain there should be very little controversy as there is so much material available, and when people think of a brain they might not necessarily think of the human brain at once. So until we start arbitrarily splitting locus coeruleus into a main and a human article things should be okay in this project.
An example that is covered by this project: Human sex differences in psychology instead of Sex differences in psychology–of course the second alternative is going to be the common name.
So to move forward, could we list the articles that do exist, and just very briefly what they are on, so that we can discuss the best naming regimen? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand better what you mean now, thanks. Of course, with psychology, there is an implicit assumption that material for a general readership will be about human psychology unless specified otherwise; and for anatomy, the brain is different from other organs because of its complex association with mind and all those other brainy things.
Your point about getting a list of articles together in one place is a very good one, and I'm going to try to do that now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

My main issue with brain size is that is a giant article that cover a giant subject.. I just want it shorten down and split up in some extent.MicroMacroMania (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles for consideration[edit]

Here is a list of pages that I think we may want to consider in this discussion:

Please add others I might have overlooked. (I'll leave notes at each talk page.)

Obviously, Brain and Human brain should remain as individual pages, as they are now. For the others, there's an open question as to whether any of them should be merged, and if so, what gets merged into what. Personally, I think there is room for some consolidation, but I would like to keep material that is specifically about the human brain separate, in this reorganization, from material about how brains have changed from species to species. I also think that WP:UCRN is important to consider. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the list. I would just add cranial capacity, currently a redirect to brain size. They are obviously not synonymous, but cranial capacity is sometimes used as a predictor of brain size, especially by anthropologists. --Mark viking (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I added it to the list. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I would reinstate MMM's edits, splitting out the non-human content of Brain size to Brain-to-body mass ratio (which most of it concerns anyway), and leaving the remainder as Human brain size. Leave the rest. Some tidying-up would be needed. Brain size should either be a disam page, or redirect to Brain-to-body mass ratio or Human brain size. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm starting to think about, instead, moving all the human-related material at Brain size to Human brain size, which is similar to what you are suggesting, but instead, I think that Evolution of the brain should be the primary page for the other material. I think that Brain-to-body mass ratio, Encephalization quotient, and Cranial capacity could all be sections within (and redirects to) Evolution of the brain (again, putting importance on WP:UCRN). I don't really see the need for separate pages for two of the three methods. Then, I think Brain size would be a redirect to Human brain size, and there would be cross-pointing hatnotes at the tops of Human brain size and Evolution of the brain. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm ambivalent about one thing, and going back and forth about it: Although I definitely do think that Evolution of the brain should be one of the pages, I'm ambivalent about whether the other should be Human brain size (per Johnbod), or Brain size (per what CFCF said above the section break). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I hadn't actually looked at Evolution of the brain, which seems misnamed. I think it should be merged into Brain-to-body mass ratio, which most of it actually deals with (not as well as the other article). There's only a couple of sentences really on Evolution of the brain - there no doubt is plenty to say on that, but this doesn't do it. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
        • In its present state, Evolution of the brain needs a lot of work, but I think that it should be the target page name, because it is really the primary topic, and because of WP:UCRN. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
          • The variation in Brain-to-body mass ratio is the focus in scientific interest, and the main subject of these various texts, mostly in terms of various species alive today. This is not what one expects to find at "Evolution of the brain", which should cover how different large groups of animals have different brain structures and functions, and how these have developed in evolution. There's none of that in these articles, which mainly deal with mammals anyway. We shouldn't name a page for a subject it doesn't cover. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
            • I'm thinking about this in terms of what the articles should become, going forward, as opposed to what they currently contain, because in their present form they still need a lot of work. Although evolution obviously is something that has occurred over time, it is very much reflected in species that are present today (phylogeny if you prefer). Subject to all the caveats about Google hits, Google Scholar returns 2,910,000 results for "evolution of the brain", [1], versus 1,860 for "brain-to-body mass ratio", [2]. That's a big difference. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
              • Those are bridges we should cross when and if we come to them. Johnbod (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
                • Well, right now, we are at the time when "evolution of the brain" is the correct choice per WP:UCRN, and "brain-to-body mass ratio" is the wrong one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As mention my main problem with brain size is the giant scope of the article. You might want to add Bergmann's rule.. Is also in the subject cause of biogeograohic variation in brain size.. That is an example of bergmanns rule..

But from what I can see there is two things we can do:

  • 1. Human part to human brain as a separate part called size, though the part about bio-geographic variation go to Bergmann's rule. Animals to Brain-to-body mass ratio. Cranial capacity get a separate article.
  • 2. Separate article about human brain size all about humans stay. Animals to Brain-to-body mass ratio. And cranial capacity get a separate article.

I to be honest dont know what is best...MicroMacroMania (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What reliable sources for articles on medical topics do you have to recommend? Merely gathering a bunch of (possibly unreplicated) primary research articles based on suggestions from blogs would be a very bad way to go about reorganizing and updating articles here on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I havent added any study from a blog.. what are you talking about? And just made a response to the above. And I have used a large amount of time trying to fix the article brain size. Havent you seen my edits and adding of more sources. But you are welcome to help trying to improve the article.. MicroMacroMania (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked at Bergmann's rule, and it doesn't seem to me to be about the brain, more like the whole body, so I don't think it figures here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems like the discussion is over.. Case closed..MicroMacroMania (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


I believe rather strongly that we need to comply with WP:UCRN in deciding which page titles to use. Although Google hits are not a perfect measure (and neither is anything else), I think that we can regard Google Scholar as an approximate guide in assessing what is the common name that our readers would search for, and what names are less familiar, and thus, potentially redirects to a page with the common name. Here is what I find:

Evolution of the brain: 2,910,000 [3]
Brain-to-body mass ratio: 1,860 [4]
Encephalization quotient: 1,770 [5]
Cranial capacity: 147,000 [6]

It's pretty clear, I think, that Evolution of the brain is by far the most common term, even in scholarly sources, and I think that it might make sense to merge the other 2 pages and the redirect into it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately "Evolution of the brain is by far the most common term" for something entirely different to what these articles cover! The relevant part of the titles of a couple of the top hits is allometry; most others are about completely different topics. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
But those "different" topics still are, per (most of) those sources, about "evolution of the brain". At this point, I think the two of us have each laid out our arguments pretty clearly, and we don't seem to be converging on a solution, so I'd like to step back and hear what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We do not seem to actually agree on what to do. But to be specific. We agree that cranial capacity should have its own article? Or you want to keep it under brain sizeMicroMacroMania (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say, because I still hope to hear from more editors. There are a couple of editors who are usually very active at this WikiProject, but who have not commented here; perhaps they are away, and perhaps they will comment here in the near future. I've already said that I'd like to see cranial capacity and some other pages become parts of Evolution of the brain. Anyway, WP:There is no deadline. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I just needed to check. I am totally in favor of waiting a week or two to let everyone comment. We need to get everyones opinion :) MicroMacroMania (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand I brought the idea of having a part about brain size in the article human brain? Just containing what is not primary sources of the brain size and not about direct brain size, just the most important. MicroMacroMania (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Looie496, Randykitty, Mark viking, CFCF: I feel like this discussion would benefit from input from more editors, so I'm pinging four editors who frequently comment at this WikiProject. If you have any advice, thanks, and if not, no worries. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts: (1) Brain size should be a separate article, because it is often treated in non-evolutionary terms. "Comparative" is not the same as "evolutionary". (2) There should be separate articles for evolution of the brain and evolution of the human brain. The latter would focus on the part of the pathway after the origin of primates. There is tons of material on that topic and it doesn't really fit well in a general article on brain evolution. (3) Human brain size would best be treated in an article such as brain and intelligence rather than a separate article of its own. However I am open to a separate article if there is enough material to support it. Looie496 (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I follow that line of reasoning, and like the suggestions. My only fear is that by having evolution of the human brain we get an article with very little page-views and few readers/editors, thus condemning it to poor quality. While I'm adverse to arbitrarily splitting articles into a main and a human I can get behind this one as long as the evolution of the human brain is discussed in the main article as well, with a proper {{main|evolution of the human brain}} link and section. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the articles, there are a couple of different axes along which brain size is considered. One axis is in allometry, where scaling in brain size, brain-body ratio, encephalization quotient, brain surface area, etc, are considered in a cohort of different animals in the present day. Another axis is evolution of the brain, which considers evolutionary development and change of qualitative structures in the brain as well as size. Evolution of brain size in hominids is a notable subtopic in this. A third axis is medical implications of brain size in humans: what range of sizes are normal, pathologies, differences by gender and ethnicity (although the latter could be considered evolutionary, too.) Given these different axes, I agree with CFCF and Looie496 that Brain size (738,000 Google hits) for the allometric, comparative aspects makes sense, as does evolution of the brain for evolutionary aspects. I think there is enough secondary content out there to support evolution of the human brain as a subtopic. We could leave the medical axis for another day, as the current articles considered don't much touch on this. --Mark viking (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I seem to agree with above statement somewhat. But the article evolution of the brain certainly need some work before it is a good article. We keep brain size as a separate article. But what about cranial capacity? Do we let it stay as a part give it a separate article? MicroMacroMania (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to the editors who responded to my ping. To answer the question about cranial capacity, it seems to me that, since we seem to have an emerging consensus for a page on brain size, dealing primarily with allometric rather than evolutionary aspects, there is so little difference between cranial capacity and brain size that I think cranial capacity should continue to be a redirect to brain size. About a possible page about brain and intelligence, I'd be reluctant to create such a page as a result of the discussion here, given the ArbCom restrictions on the subject. I also agree with the opinions that have been given about having pages about evolution, and I can point out that someone more up-to-date than I could probably add a lot of encyclopedic material about molecular evidence about brain evolution.

So, I think there is an emerging consensus about the following pages:

That leaves these two pages, for which I do not yet see much of a consensus in any direction:

I suppose, absent any further comments in this discussion, we should go with the status quo, so that each of those two pages would remain standalone pages, covered per WP:Summary style in Brain size and perhaps in the two evolution pages.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusions on the emerging consensus and think summary style in Brain size is a good compromise for Brain-to-body mass ratio and Encephalization quotient. I would support this approach. --Mark viking (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems like we found agreement. Case closed I guess?MicroMacroMania (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait, something I never got cleared out, what about the small summary I wrote about brain size? It could not be used anywhere? Link: I wrote it as a small subsection for the article human brain as a link to the article about brain size. MicroMacroMania (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say that it should not go into Human brain. It needs some revising (which can come later), and revisions could go, mostly, into Brain size, and perhaps in small part, into the new Evolution of the human brain. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok seems like we got everything cleared out :)MicroMacroMania (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It saddens me that cranial capacity did not get a separate page. There is enough material in the topic. MicroMacroMania (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


Students in Education Program:Ohio State University/EEOB3310 Evolution (Autumn 2014), in which User:Antlady is the instructor and User:Bluerasberry is the online volunteer, are showing up on some of the pages in this project. Editors here may want to keep an eye open for new accounts editing these pages. And everyone who hasn't yet done so might want to take a look at WP:ASSIGN. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


Anyone here know what the Neothalamus is? Does it simply entail any neocortex communicating parts of the thamalus? Or is it more specifically part of the ventral thalamus, or something else entirely? In any case I'd think it should be merged with a parent article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Not that this proves anything, but this is the first that I've heard of it. Here is a Google Scholar search: [7]. With only 192 results, not exactly a hot topic. Seems like a developmental term, contrasted with paleothalamus, which is a red page for us. Especially per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, I think it would be fine for you to go ahead and merge it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:John O'Keefe (neuroscientist)[edit]

There is some discussion here about an IP trying to insert some (fringe?) views into the article. (Presumably,) the same person is spamming neuroscientists on ResearchGate with this stuff. Some extra eyes may be helpful, especially from someone who can confirm whether or not this is indeed fringe stuff (I'm not qualified for that, it's just that the way this guy is going about it has "fringe" written all over it...). --Randykitty (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I've responded there. @Looie496: you know a lot about this subject, so maybe you could check it as well. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not too much into electrophysiology and haven't followed the field very closely recently... Thanks for looking into this! --Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)