Talk:Ethmoid sinus

Anatomy: Gross Low‑importance

	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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Untitled

The merger proposal is so far unsupported and isn't particularly reasonable. Enclosed within <> part of. Sinuses and bones are quite different things. I oppose this proposal.- Nunh-huh 16:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the merge tag. --Arcadian 15:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paranasal sinuses

Either we have pages about all four paranasal sinuses, or none; they are all categorically clumped together. Maxillary sinus is under reconstruction right now. I vote that all 4 paranasal sinuses get equal attention. The material concerning them is available in advanced medical textbooks and reference books. I personally refer to the Merck Manual (17th Edition) when trying to describe bodily parts.

This reminds me: how non-technical should wikipedia be? When using medical jargon, one uses word like "distal" and "proximal." Should it be easy to read or highly technical? (e.g., as "runny nose" as opposed to "rhinorrhea")

Proposal to merge the article to 'Labyrinth of ethmoid'

As the Terminologia anatomica (1998), which is the international standard on human anatomic terminology, does not include the term sinus ethmoidalis (ethmoidal sinus) but labyrinthus ethmoidalis (ethmoidal labyrinth), I believe the article should be merged with the article Labyrinth of ethmoid, which should then be moved to Ethmoid labyrinth (per [1]). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interested non-expert

I have a science background, but found ethmoidal hard to understand. It did however fall into place when read along with the labyrinth, so I wouldn't be against a merger.

As for the technical jargon, detailed terms seems by necessity to drive detailed descriptions, but they shouldn't be complex when they could simpler. I worked through the detail, but knowing where to go to get a higher-level view without as much detail as important to give the non-expert context and grounding. HuskyRat (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]