|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trigeminal nerve article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This talk page is for discussion on how to improve the Trigeminal nerve article.
If you would like to ask questions about the subject, please address them to the Reference desk.
|WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|
Background information and Central pathways
It is not particularly useful to delete large sections from a Wikipedia article because they contain "some very generic stuff that's already covered in other articles." One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that the same topic is often covered in many different articles, written from different points of view and at different levels of complexity, with different target audiences in mind.
The present article includes background information on sensation, which is entirely appropriate in an article about a sensory nerve. Readers who find this information “too basic” are free to skip over it.
The article also contains a summary of central pathways for sensation. Two of these pathways (the trigeminal lemniscus and the trigeminothalamic tract) are specific to the trigeminal nerve. At the present time they are not covered elsewhere in Wikipedia; that is one reason for including them here. Btarski 20:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The sensory stuff must go. I agree that some basics is okay, but when I look up article on a dog, I'm not really interested in how mammals evolved to walk on land or the components of leather in a collar. If what's in this article isn't covered in sensation, then it should be moved there. If it's already there, delete it. Look at cranial nerve V, for instance. There is no sensation summary. At least be consistent.
Details about pathways to the thalamus and cortex have no business on this page. Similarly, the section on sensation and sensory pathways are by no means specific to the trigeminal nerve. Because of this nonspecificity, these discussions all belong elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sqroot3 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Separating notes and references
The style guideline Wikipedia: Citing sources notes that
- It can be helpful when footnotes are used that a separate “references” section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order.
- A References section, which lists citations in alphabetical order, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used.
The style guideline Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines discusses articles on technical subjects that are widely known within certain disciplines. Such articles, the guideline says, should be sourced so that in principle anyone can verify them.
- Most readers would assume that the bulk of the statements in the comparatively short Wikipedia article could be verified by checking any of these references.
There are no rigid guidelines with respect to notes and references. In addition to Notes (in-line references), articles may have sections labeled “References,” “Bibliography,” “Further reading,” “Textbooks,” “Poplar reading” and so on, depending on the subject.
The present article deals almost exclusively with “core” knowledge in physiology and clinical medicine. Therefore, it is referenced primarily by a list of standard textbooks in the field. The listed books are authoritative, but (with the possible exception of Wilson-Pauwels et. al.) they are also highly technical. The article might benefit from an additional list of introductory books and articles intended for the general reader.
In-line references in this article are sparse and could probably be expanded and improved. For example, the first reference bears no obvious relation to the subject it footnotes (the etymology of ‘’trigeminal’‘). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btarski (talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), "Medical articles should be relatively dense with inline citations. It is not acceptable to write substantial amounts of prose and then add your medical textbook to the References section. It is too easy for a later editor to change the body text and then nobody is sure which statements are backed up by which sources. Unlike many established scientific disciplines, medicine attracts controversy and opponents on even the most basic and commonly held facts.". If you want to include that list of books, you need to tie them to specific assertions made in the article. --Arcadian 03:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
More on references
Removing the entire References section from an article is not an improvement. On the contrary, it makes the article less useful for Wikipedia readers.
If an article needs more footnotes, then they should be supplied. But deciding exactly what to footnote in this article raises the very point I was trying to make. Does every anatomical fact in the article need a footnote? Does every CNS tract need a reference? Does every disease of the 5th nerve need its own footnote? Of course not.
The point is that articles that summarize a large body of information – information that is not in any way controversial or disputed – do not need to document each and every sentence. The material in this article is common knowledge in medicine.
Summary articles like this cannot simply be presented. The reader needs to have some idea of where the information comes from. References should be provided, so that the reader can refer to the sources. The sources, in this case, are standard textbooks.
The guideline you cite refers to articles where there is “controversy and opponents on even the most basic and commonly held facts.” Do you really think that there is controversy or opposition on any of the facts in this article? I would be most interested to learn of it.
Many topics in medicine are, indeed, controversial. Examples would be specific therapies, or specific diagnostic criteria, or even entire conceptual frameworks such as psychiatry. I agree with you that these topics require careful documentation, with specific in-line references. Simply citing a textbook isn't good enough. However, I don’t think that articles about basic anatomy and physiology need the same kind of line-by-line detail. Attempts to add such details would be futile, and they would detract from the readability of the article. It would be a disservice to readers.
In looking through Wikipedia’s coverage of medicine, I find many articles that have References. For example, look at the beta blocker article. Should the References section in this article be deleted? They are not tied to the text. Would removing them improve the article?
References are a useful addition to almost any Wikipedia article. They should not be removed simply because they “cannot be tied to the text.” That is why they are called references. The present article is a good example of an article that needs references, specifically, references to generally accepted textbooks on neuroanatomy and neurophysiology.Btarski 00:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
which cranial nerve control the muscle of facial expression
u can help me find the answer for me please
File:Trigeminal ganglion.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Trigeminal ganglion.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
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.
Reason for decussation
The text of the article discusses why there is a contralateral organization to many brain areas. In my opinion, the explanation given is 1) out of place in this article, 2) difficult to follow, and 3) incorrect: "The main reason for Decussation is that optic chiasma occurs(Nasal fibres of the Optic Nerve cross so each cerebral hemisphere receives the contralateral vision) and to keep interneuronal connections short(responsible for processing of information) all sensory and motor pathways converge and diverge respectively to the contralateral hemisphere.(Courtesy H. Balram Krishna, excerpt from Cunningham's Manual of Practical Anatomy)" In fact, I am not aware that anyone has an evolutionary or even teleological explanation for the contralateral organization of the brain (though there are a number of speculations on the subject). I suggest removing the quoted passage.
(I am a newbie; please forgive me if I have made a procedural error with this post.)
New main image
I have uploaded the following image which I believe illustrates the distribution of the nerve very well:
Unfortunately the image is somewhat morbid, and that might retract from its explanatory use. Throwing this out there for input because I don't want to decide on my own. This is the current image by the way:
- Ping Lesion,LT910001 CFCF (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Additionally for branches of the nerve there are:
- Went through with the edit, the other images are now placed under additional images. CFCF (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
There is this long patch of text with no citations given, which is a problem: "The classic diagram implies a single primary sensory map of the body, when there are multiple primary maps. At least four separate, anatomically-distinct sensory homunculi have been identified in the postcentral gyrus. They represent combinations of input from surface and deep receptors and rapidly- and slowly-adapting peripheral receptors; smooth objects will activate certain cells, and rough objects will activate other cells.
"Information from all four maps in SI is sent to the secondary sensory cortex (SII) in the parietal lobe. SII contains two more sensory homunculi. Information from one side of the body is generally represented on the opposite side in SI, but on both sides in SII. Functional MRI imaging of a defined stimulus (for example, stroking the skin with a toothbrush) "lights up" a single focus in SI and two foci in SII." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:47C4:EC00:F823:265C:39E3:C32B (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)