Talk:Connective tissue

message: Does blood really count as "connective tissue"? I find that counterintuitive. 19:58, 8 Jun 2005
*It is counterintuitive, but embryologically and functionally it fits in with the connective tissues—it just has a more extensive and less viscous matrix—as I understand it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood? 

message: I just lost the detailed comment I wanted to put here regards my edit when I clicked on "What is a minor edit?" below. 
I'm too furious about that now to repost it, so if anyone wants to know why I've added Lupus as a CTD please simply refer to the Merck medical manual entry for Lupus here http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec04/ch032/ch032g.html, or ask me if you require further info.
Its probably better I dont explain in detail why I think Lupus should be listed as a CTD except to say that a Lupus entry here helps tie together a particular clearly visible CTD as a possible indicator of Lupus, which is very nebulous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abunyip (talk • contribs) 11:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lupus as a CTD 

message: The "classification" section is very disorganized.  Someone from one of the three associated wikiprojects should look into it. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix-up 

message: Shouldn't there be something mentioning that connective tissues are defined by their having a particular extracellular matrix? --Crimson30 (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECM 

message: There should be more information in this article in general. But specifically there should be a description of connective tissue, examples, and a definition of 'fibrous tissue' as referred to in the first line. Are the terms 'connective tissue' and 'fibrous connective tissue' synonymous? There is an incredible lack of information in this article to the point where it is just the statement of a few random facts. There is no flow or continuity, and the article makes little sense in general. Even the article on 'osseous tissue' has more information than this. Shushanto (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More descriptive information needed 

message: From what I've read elsewhere, fibrous tissue and elastic tissue would fall under Connective tissue proper, but the paragraph seems to represent them as "other, less classifiable types of connective tissues (like 'lymphoid' correctly put here).  The whole  'classification of connective types needs to be done better, as stated above, so I won't make the change, just wanted to put a note here in case someone else trying to learn about connective tissue questions the same thing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.121.10 (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "fibrous, elastic," are types under connective tissue proper 

message: Why aren't fascia mentioned in this article or the  template? The Dense irregular connective tissue does mention it. Debresser (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascia 

message: The articles explain already in their leads, that ligaments join bones, fascia join muscles, tendons join bone to muscle, while aponeurosis is unrelated to the question what they join. That begs the question, what then is the defining characteristic setting apart the aponeurosis from the other three? Would that be being a layer, read a group, of tendons, making it a meta-structure compared to the other three? If so, perhaps that should be explained a bit more clearly in the article. For some reason, something close to a definition can be found in Plantar_fascia#Structure (where it probably should be removed as out of place). Debresser (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aponeurosis