Talk:Cochlear nucleus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:41, 10 January 2011

Medicine: Neurology Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

I added a flag proposing a merger of the pages "dorsal cochlear nucleus" and "cochlear nuclei". The former was originally a section of the latter. It was extracted without explanation at one point and I fail to see what the merits of this edit were, especially as the original article was not then edited to reflect its exclusive focus on the ventral cochlear nucleus (e.g., the title is still "cochlear nuclei"). Apart from the failure to separate the content of the original article into two complementary and unitary articles, a primary motivation for the separation is not obvious. The dCN article is neither voluminous nor is it sufficiently distinct from the CN article to warrant the current separation. I think this material will be better communicated to the reader if these sections are reintegrated.

I oppose the merge, but if you are confident that the majority of the material in cochlear nuclei pertains to ventral cochlear nucleus, then I would support moving the bulk of the content to that page. --Arcadian 23:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose the merge... while the material currently present in the articles may not adequately describe the differences in the two regions, the anatomical and physiological differences should justify their separation. I would recommend adding material to each page instead. Wittnate 22:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the VCN/DCN articles should be merged back into the CN article. However I do see a number of options:

A CN article with separate articles for each cell type, and no VCN or DCN articles.
A CN article that pretty much lists the VCN, DCN articles. And ends it there.Mjspe1 (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove section "Structures"

I think the section "Structures" should be removed. It is rather generic, and more concerned with an overview of the auditory system in general, not the CN. What do you think? --Morton Shumway (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. It was a strange section. I have moved into into a 'projections from the CN' section.Mjspe1 (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{WPMED|class=Start|importance=Mid|neurology=yes|neurology-imp=Mid}}
 I added a flag proposing a merger of the pages "dorsal cochlear nucleus" and "cochlear nuclei". The former was originally a section of the latter. It was extracted without explanation at one point and I fail to see what the merits of this edit were, especially as the original article was not then edited to reflect its exclusive focus on the ventral cochlear nucleus (e.g., the title is still "cochlear nuclei"). Apart from the failure to separate the content of the original article into two complementary and unitary articles, a primary motivation for the separation is not obvious. The dCN article is neither voluminous nor is it sufficiently distinct from the CN article to warrant the current separation. I think this material will be better communicated to the reader if these sections are reintegrated.
 :I oppose the merge, but if you are confident that the majority of the material in [[cochlear nuclei]] pertains to [[ventral cochlear nucleus]], then I would support moving the bulk of the content to that page. --[[User:Arcadian|Arcadian]] 23:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 :I also oppose the merge... while the material currently present in the articles may not adequately describe the differences in the two regions, the anatomical and physiological differences should justify their separation.  I would recommend adding material to each page instead. [[User:Wittnate|Wittnate]] 22:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
+:I agree that the VCN/DCN articles should be merged back into the CN article. However I do see a number of options:
+* A CN article with separate articles for each cell type, and no VCN or DCN articles.
+* A CN article that pretty much lists the VCN, DCN articles. And ends it there.[[User:Mjspe1|Mjspe1]] ([[User talk:Mjspe1|talk]]) 01:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 == Remove section "Structures" ==
 I think the section "Structures" should be removed. It is rather generic, and more concerned with an overview of the auditory system in general, not the CN. What do you think? --[[User:Morton Shumway|Morton Shumway]] ([[User talk:Morton Shumway|talk]]) 16:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC).
+: I agree. It was a strange section. I have moved into into a 'projections from the CN' section.[[User:Mjspe1|Mjspe1]] ([[User talk:Mjspe1|talk]]) 01:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)