Talk:Cranial nerves

message: Cranial nerves do not have a central and peripheral course.  Once in the brain, they are no longer cranial nerves.  The nerves have intracranial and extrancranial courses.  I am changing the text accordingly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talk • contribs) 13:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  central and peripheral course 

message: In the sections under 2 Function, the function of each nerve is discussed largely in terms of known pathologies. Is this how anatomical function is normally or primarily described? Is the emphasis on pathology a feature of medical literature as opposed to literature for a general audience? 
I suspect that the knowledge of cranial nerve function might proceed largely from the knowledge of adverse physical conditions   observed consistently in conjunction with specific cranial nerve damage. (In other words, as regards "function," it may be more truthful to say, "we know what functions are impaired when this particular nerve is damaged," rather than describe the same nerve as positively "having" such functions.) Even so, as a general reader, I myself did expect to find information about normative "function" as such and was surprised to find mostly information characterizing "malfunction." 
Please keep in mind that I am not a medical expert, and please do pardon my ignorance if the reason for the focus on pathology is obvious or generally understood. --Zmvictor (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @ you make an excellent point and I very much agree this distinction between normal and abnormal is important. For this reason in most articles "Clinical significance" and "Function" are split quite clearly. In this article we use a slightly different structure. The main reason for that was otherwise we have two lists of the tweleve nerves - one in function and one in clinical significance, which ended up being messy. We decided it might be more useful to have the effect of damage to each of the twelve nerves next to its function, and an overall coverage of sources of damage in the 'clincial significance' section. I see that the text has deteriorated a little bit so this distinction has been lost over time. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ergh. I think this article will need more work than I thought. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

text: @  I have made quite a lot of edits to the article. It's not perfect but I hope this is an improvement. Let me know what you think.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

text: @ Just a note to say I reread the article and very much appreciated your emendations as well as the expanded text and additional figures. I found the subsections under Function clear and easy to follow. As a reader, I quickly caught on to the pattern (description of normative function followed by description of abnormal function due to damage), which helped me organize the information mentally as I was reading.-- Zmvictor (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks I appreciate your positive reply :). Let me know (probably via my talk page is easiest) if you find any other articles that are particularly hard to understand, happy to have a look and try and improve them too. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is "Function" discussed largely as pathology? 

message: :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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Cranial nerves →  – WP:SINGULAR, not a plurale tantum, a single cranial nerve isn't referred to in plural, in line with spinal nerve where the nerves are more commonly referred to in plural. Background is a declined past move request per :Template:Db-move. –Tobias (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Thanks for proposing this, I'm always appreciative of efforts to improve articles in our anatomical space. You can see I've been involved in editing this article previously. I would not be in favour of moving the article per Wikipedia:PLURAL, "Articles on groups of distinct entities that are nevertheless often considered together". Unlike spinal nerves, which are often simply reported by their number and are conceptually fairly similar, the cranial nerves are very commonly considered as a group. That's why there is a difference between the two article titles. Tom (LT) (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's great to hear from you. I think I understand your perspective on the titles being oriented towards the detailed characteristics of the described topic. However, I'm questioning whether the structure of subdivisions within the topic, such as the individual cranial nerves, should influence the title. Also, doesn't the conceptual similarity of spinal nerves make them more considerable as a group compared to even the cranial nerves? I'm also concerned about consistancy and conciseness. For example, the cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae are commonly referred to as a group and it is consistent that all of their articles bear a plural title. Applying this principle on the cranial nerves and spinal nerves, I see an inconsistancy which seems less concise too, imho. I'm just wondering if there might be a more concise approach. Maybe you have some ideas to address this? –Tobias (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose - it seems quite clear as above that WP:PLURAL and WP:Article titles#Exceptions cover this use of a plural form. As for Spinal nerve I would likewise support a move to Spinal nerves.--Iztwoz (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's clear. But the simple permission doesn't necessarily make it useful and the use of plural form is what I can't get my head around right now. –Tobias (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I want to add something not irrelevant: the majority of articles about a group of anatomical structures like bones bear a plural title, if there is a neutral term, it seems to be preferred like in phalanx bone. With this in mind, this is a kind of discussion to get a consistency and consensus whether to use the singular or plural form in specific groups. As for me, I think it is more logical to prefer singular form and still support it, because there is no need for using plural in non-plurale tantums and we're aiming to describe e. g. the 12 thoracic vertebrae of humans, but other mammals to have thoracic vertebrae too, therefore defining a structurally similar, yet different group, which is not the intended topic of the article. This choice has to be independent of current practice on Wikipedia, as this is irrelevant in deciding which option is the more logical one. –Tobias (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There are countless uses of plurals often used in negating the need for disambiguation pages and allowing the inclusion of numbers of small stub items into one inclusive page and also where an item such as ketone body is never referred to in the singular. So I still oppose the proposal.--Iztwoz (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ketone body metabolism" - seems kinda not-never to me. Not to mention Lewy body, Mallory body, or Psammoma body and terms like Lewy body dementia.  –Tobias (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that you changed long-standing Ketone bodies -is it your intention to move all the plurals pages. Have copied from the redirect template:- To its plural form - This is a redirect from a singular noun to its plural form. Redirects of this sort exist for reader convenience in cases of singular–plural pairs. It is also used for "false singulars", wherein the plural or plural-looking form is better attested in usage, such that the normal "prefer the singular" Wikipedia naming convention is not followed.   That should cover the page Ketone bodies too i.e. in better attested in plurals usage. Cranial nerves only occur in pairs.--Iztwoz (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Iztwoz Nasal bone is a paired bone the way a cranial nerve is paired. Even though they're paired, both of them are referred to as single cranial nerve and nasal bone, not their plural form. –Tobias (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The nasal bones are two of a kind, just one pair likewise eye, ear, nostril. I am not going to obsess about this - have provided the rationale from the redirect template.--Iztwoz (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 23 April 2024