|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hemodynamics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I wonder if we could also include the fact that hemodynamics plays the great part in the erection mechanism of the penis and is subject of its in-depth study.
I have proposed that Haemodynamic response be merged into this article. Haemodynamic response seems to cover one aspect of haemodynamics, specific to the brain. I don't think it contains enough information to warrant a separate article. However, if there is a completely different medical context in which the term "haemodynamic response" is used, please explain below. Otherwise, if there are no other serious objections, then I'll effect the merger within a week. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. The Haemodynamic response (function) is an important concept in functional brain imaging and, I believe, important enough and distinct enough in that context to warrant an independent article. Perhaps to emphasize this point the other article should be actually be renamed "Haemodynamic response function" and re-written to better describe the role of the Haemodynamic response in neruoimaging. I do agree that the article there is not particularly detailed, but that is not a good reason to merge them. I think a pointer from this article to that one would be better. My main reason for this belief, is that this article is primarily about the heart and circulation whereas the other article should be primarily about how a particular aspect of haemodynamics related to imaging. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Titles do need changing so at least the spelling is consistent. I think they also need changing to explain they concentrate on different aspects of the subjects, if that is what they do. I suspect though that this distinction intended by some editors is not as clear in the articles themselves. Sandpiper (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Merge from blood flow
- Support: I support the merge. DiptanshuTalk 14:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support: Yes, merging is perfectly appropriate. Rather than do it in one session you can shift topics, one at a time, until all the information is here. Then delete blood flow article. ... PeterEasthope (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cautious Support: On the face of it I see no difference in the meaning of the two titles, so they should not be separate articles. I am cautious because this is potentially a highly specialist subject, so there might be important shades of meanings. One the other hand, having two articles with titles having virtually the same meanings in common English simply confuses a non expert reader such as myself. Either merge or make clear why there needs to be two separate articles dealing with different aspects, with distinguishable titles.Sandpiper (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Copy/Paste action? : )
Without accusing one author or the other, but this article seems to copy quite extensively (and verbatim) from this page on blood flow (and other aspects). Does this merit a complete rewrite? Mfhulskemper (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Merge from Blood_pressure#Hemodynamics
There is quite a hefty chunk of hemodynamics on the Blood pressure page that could be split off into a separate article. It would be a good fit for expanding this article. Gccwang (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Disadvantages of merger
I believe that the merger should not be done, it makes it harder for students to research on the specific things. despite hemodynamics and blood vessels being similar, there are some specific information that students/anyone else may be looking for under the specific 2 topics. If we merger them, one may find it confusing to find the specific point which they need for a project or research. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)