Talk:Sliding filament theory

Anatomy: Microanatomy 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 microanatomy.

Medicine Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physiology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Justifying this page

I am aware that there was an orginal sliding filament theory/model that was merged into muscle contraction (decided in the talk page). But that page did not remotely discuss the original hypothesis nor is it there in the new merged page. The redirect simply points to the heading which only describes cross-bridge cycle, not the hypothesis or model. Above all, the title "hypothesis" is historically more significant because it was introduced as a "very attractive" "hypothesis" (see the original text). And the name is still in use when it is discussed in terms of history. One should be aware that the sliding itself is now an established fact. Hence, my concern is on the original proposition and its historical value. Chhandama (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be renamed as the "sliding filament theory," which is more accurate since it is an explanation supported by the evidence. Thus, it is no longer a hypothesis. Plus, sliding-filament theory is also more widely used than sliding filament hypothesis. danielkueh (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though I also see "sliding filament model" a lot. HCA (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we'll move it then. danielkueh (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 March 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-bridge cycle → Sliding filament theory – Sliding filament theory is the WP:COMMONNAME and very widely used. This was moved to the current title, Cross-bridge cycle, by Walidou47, recently, and I'd like to get the opinion of other editors as to the best title for this article. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As a major author of the article, I agree that sliding filament theory is the most universal name, and cross-bridge cycle, to put it mildly, is simply the mechanism of the sliding itself, and not the sliding per se. Also note that the article name was already decided as above ( Cross-bridge cycle) 5 years ago. Chhandama (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The proposed name is not just more common, it's also more specific. Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.