Talk:Arches of the foot

message: Apparently someone split the article by moving all its main content to separate articles (Longitudinal arch of the foot‎ and Transverse arch of the foot‎.  While this split sort of makes sense, this article without _any_ description of these arches looked weird me me, so I just merged the articles again. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged articles 

message: The following section was interesting but lacks references so I drop it here for now. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arch styles

message: As above, the following section lacks references so I removed it from the article.  I had a look around and apparently this section was originally added to the foot type article and both that article and the section below seem to be largely the work of now blocked sockpuppets.  --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pathology

message: The extant skeletal remains of pre-human, ie. Neanderthals feet seem to lack arches, though I have heard it suggested that they had far superior balance and durability than we modern humans - the overall structure of the feet of pre-humans being better on all counts. It's puzzling as to how the arch of the foot evolved from something excellently suited to walking to something that is weaker and lacking somewhat in utility, necessitating the innovation of shoes in antiquity.But then again, almost everything about the musculo-skeletal structure of pre-humans is superior to the inadequete physical design of the modern human body. Proof Reader (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of Arches in pre-humans

message: The article was greatly improved today with the addition of the "Function and Evolution of the Arches of the Foot" section.  Apparently these two contributors are new to Wikipedia so I tried to help them out by adding reference templates etcetera to this section.  Here below are my attempts to list the web links I used to find the information and the digital object identifiers I added to the article:
# The spring in the arch of the human foot doi:10.1038/325147a0
# Subfossil mammalian tracks (Flandrian) in the Severn Estuary, S. W. Britain: mechanics of formation, preservation and distribution. doi:10.1098/rstb.1997.0035
# Experimentally generated footprints in sand: Analysis and consequences for the interpretation of fossil and forensic footprints DOI:10.1002/ajpa.21169
# New insights into the plantar pressure correlates of walking speed using pedobarographic statistical parametric mapping (pSPM).
# Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion doi:10.1111/j.0021-8782.2004.00296.x
# Locomotor anatomy and biomechanics of the Dmanisi hominins e doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.03.006
# Early Hominin Foot Morphology Based on 1.5-Million-Year-Old Footprints from Ileret, Kenya doi:10.1126/science.1168132
The  template is supposed to call a bot that automatically adds all possible kind of information.  Sometimes this fails, so the links above can be useful. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on references 

message: This article seems rather jargon heavy. There are a few places where the language seems to just use technical words when it's not necessary; for instance, "Its summit is at the superior articular surface of the talus, and its two extremities or piers, on which it rests in standing, are the tuberosity on the plantar surface of the calcaneus posteriorly and the heads of the first, second, and third metatarsal bones anteriorly."
Here, we could change posteriorly and anteriorly to "at the front" and "at the back" without any loss in meaning, and it would make the article a lot less intimidating. Plus, "tuberosity on the plantar surface of the calcaneus" should have an explanation tagged to it, really.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.16.19 (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon? 

message: When the term instep was mentioned I had no idea what it meant. Luckily typing it into Wikipedia says it is an arch on the top of the foot between the toes and ankles.
This made me wonder if it has some relation to the arch on the bottom of the foot, also between the toes and ankles (well, the heel more specifically) described on this page.
For example: if the arch drops or is lost on the bottom, would it drop or be lost on the top. Or vice versa, if the bottom-arch is of a pronounced (excessive) curve if this would also cause a pronounced curve of the top-arch (the instep).
If this was the case it would be useful to mention on this page, as there is currently no mention of the instep. --Ranze (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Instep]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Arches of the foot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131206011954/http://www.runnersworld.com:80/health/big-7-body-breakdowns?page=single to http://www.runnersworld.com/health/big-7-body-breakdowns?page=single
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307220754/http://www.gla.ac.uk:80/t4/~fbls/files/fab/tutorial/anatomy/arch1.html to http://www.gla.ac.uk/t4/~fbls/files/fab/tutorial/anatomy/arch1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified