Talk:Lumbar vertebrae

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

Intro wording[edit]

The introduction states that the lumbar vertebrae "can be distinguished by the absence of a foramen (hole) in the transverse process, and by the absence of facets on the sides of the body", but it does not make clear from what they can be thus distinguished. Is it from the other vertebrae? I can only guess.
My back hurts like hell and I can't get out bed.
It would be nice if this article linked to an article that could help me figure out why. I'll make a link if I can find such an article.
--Pekinensis 20:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bad wording on this one. Only the cervical vertebrae have the transverse foramen for the vertebral artery so it doesn't help to distinguish between thoracic and lumbar vertebrae.
--Taoster 17:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
   One would hope that a reader who couldn't get out of bed stopped trying to use WP as a guide to self-treatment and arranged for transportation to an emergency room or immediate care center.
--Jerzyt 15:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Intro, last sentence[edit]

Hi, I have made an edit to the last sentence of the intro which initially read like this:

"This area of the spine is the source of much body motion and supports most of the body weight."

I argue that the lumbar spine is the "source of much body motion" when pathological, injurious motor patterns are used. In biomechanically efficient, non-injurious motor patterns, the acetabulofemoral joint (hip) would likely be the "source". Besides, "much body motion" is too vague and unscientific.
I therefore also had to remove the given reference which presented the stated erroneous information. This "reference" (a business offering treatment for spine injuries) was a poor one, not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia.
If there is any disagreement with my edit, I will be happy to discuss here.
Patrick Roy-V., B.Sc. Kin,
-- (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Further comment on the bad "reference". This link was, it seems, inserted for publicity, by user Truthinknowledge, whose edits all contain the same link (spam) and have also been reverted by other users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wording in General[edit]

Too many words are too technical, medical jargon, having no intuitive meaning for the average reader seeking information. It needs simplification or translation wherever possible. I can't help edit, without proceeding word by word with a medical dictionary. Or, would this overly simplify the article? I'm not sure.
What is Wiki-policy in such a situation? At what level is Wikipedia targeted? Wikipedia's genius, popularity and usefulness for me is that (written by consensus) it generally tells me exactly what real-people want to know, rather than that written by experts.
HalFonts (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

   Ideally articles are written by experts who are able to write for other experts, but choose to write here for a wide range of non-experts. In practice that often happens, and it also often happens that non-experts manage to reword in ways that make experts say "Gosh, I wish I'd've thot of putting it that way!"
--Jerzyt 15:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sections "General characteristics" & "First to fifth lumbar vertebrae"[edit]

   The sent

These are the general characteristics of the first through fourth lumbar vertebrae.

in "General characteristics" seems not to be accurate, i suppose bcz of characteristics common to all the lumbars.
   The "First to fifth lumbar vertebrae" section got misnamed when a secn abt L1 was merged with one abt L5, but that title has become even less descriptive.
   I don't expect to get it right in reorganizing and rewording, but i expect the result will be an improvement.
--Jerzyt 15:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it not be better to follow the model of Thoracic vertebrae -- do the general characteristics, and then a separate section for each lumbar vertebra?
Solo Owl 17:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eall Ân Ûle (talkcontribs)
Yes it would. JakobSteenberg (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Lumbar.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Lumbar.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Lumbar vertebrae.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Lumbar vertebrae.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary variation[edit]

This section is almost impossible to understand. Why don't you just state how many lumbar vertebrae are normally found in each species? Maybe a table with separate lines for gorilla, chimpanzee, bonobo, and the various species of Homo, Australopithecus, etc.; in future years one can add to it as more data comes available.

The important point here, though, is that lordosis that makes possible upright bipedal walking and running. How did that evolve?

Solo Owl 18:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eall Ân Ûle (talkcontribs)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lumbar vertebrae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)