Talk:Flexor retinaculum of the foot

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Move from "Flexor retinaculum"

I have always been more familiar with the term "flexor retinaculum", in part because it matches the palmar one, and "Lacinate" is surely just as Latin as the previous name. In addition the TA term is "Flexor retinaculum". Perhaps we should reverse the move? --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am aware that laciniate is also latin - reason for move, just that its the less latin and also by ngram far more used and has to be easier reading for the general reader. Since a lot of other items have been moved from their obvious more medically known names there needs to be some actual consistent guideline. ?? Iztwoz (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I agree we should be using common names. I am guessing you searched for "Flexor retinaculum of foot" on n-gram? The thing is that it's generally called just the FR, without "of foot". If you do it like that, then the n-gram is much more in favour of FR... which of course includes now the hand, too. Confusing. I did just a plain 'ol google search for "Flexor retinaculum of foot" and there are 66,000 results vs. 4,640 of the laciniate ligament, so that would imply FR is the accepted term. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But is there not a case for using easier reading terms in a general encyclopedia rather than those used in the medical specialities - a google search would undoubtably return a higher count since it would be used more in medical references. There are many instances of changing latin names to an easier alternative even though the root is still latin like external for externus - as long as the medical term is used alongside in lead I cannot see a difference in rationale. Articles are meant to be read by anybody of any educational backgound. Flexor is self-explanatory - but retinaculum ? And what about Cooper's ligaments (not the name given in TA).? And (last example) extensor retinaculum of the hand has as its infobox caption dorsal carpal ligament and on flexor retinaculum of the hand transverse carpal ligament is in infobox caption.-- Iztwoz (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree "retinaculum" does not make much sense. That said my point is that this is the "common name" insofar as people who are aware of what it is use it... and also it is the accepted TA title. I think we should put this up for WP:MOVE to get some other perspectives. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK - can you do this? But from the points raised i.e. re coopers ligament not being TA used - and different names referred to in inboxes -there has to be some consistent guideline. Would also say that anybody who needs or wants to look up flexor retinaculum does not need wikipedia for this. It would redirect to more readable name anyway - and anyone wishing to follow a link as general reader would be able to do so. --Iztwoz (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Agree this situation is confusing. I'm sure there are already many, many, many relevant acronymed guidelines that neither of us are aware of and maybe some users can point them out below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laciniate ligament → Flexor retinaculum of foot – The name of this ligament was moved to "laciniate ligament" however I think that it should be renamed to "Flexor retinaculum of foot". When being described, this is simply called the "flexor retinaculum". However it's been disambiguated because there is another FR in the hand. So it's inaccurate to use google n-gram, which has no entries for "flexor retinaculum of foot". A more accurate representation is a google search, which supports that FR is the more common title (WP:COMMONNAME). A search for "Flexor retinaculum of foot" (without the quotation marks in the search) has about 66,500 results, whereas a search for "Laciniate ligament" (without quotation marks) only has about 4,650 results.

Therefore I propose that this article be moved back to FR because:

"Flexor retinaculum" is the Terminologia anatomica name, which means it is the most used in scientific publications
FR is used more commonly, the google search results support this. Tom (LT) (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support for this move back. A search as suggested has shown it is the most used.--Iztwoz (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In addition to the search on Google, the page view tool shows that in the last 90 days Flexor retinaculum of the foot has been requested over 3700 times and Laciniate ligament 326 times. I think we should stick with retinaculum in all these structures altough I agree the term isn't the most friendly to the general public. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.