Talk:Pyramidal cell

message: I restored the article as it was written by Javeal, because I think he made a great contribution to this article. It is much better than it was before. Actually, the article as edited by Alansohn (to which Dicklyon reverted) only had one single reference for one single sentence, so it was not a referenced article to start with. I put an "unreferenced" tag on top of the article, and I hope that Javeal will put his sources shortly. Lova Falk (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A great contribution is one that cites sources.  A big addition that leaves it to others to find sources is not net progress, which is why I encouraged that editor to  please try to do it right, and I offered to help. Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced article 

message: This is constructive criticism for the article's improvement.
You have 2 possible audiences: higly trained physicians or laymen. If the aim of this article is physicians, then it should be located somewhere else (not be in wikipedia). If it is aimed to common people, you should change at least the opening paragraph and the description of the first image because not everyone knows what makes a neuron "neocortical", or what's Golgi's technique, an "apical" dentrite, a soma, a "basal" dentrite, etc. 200.82.41.67 (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual audience for technical encyclopedia articles is typically somewhere in the big middle between laymen and specialists.  Feel free to help improve the article.  In many cases, just linking to articles about the concepts in question may be enough.  "Apical" means on the top, or near the apex; "basal" means at the bottom, near the base (apex and base have a broadly understood meaning with respect to pyramid shapes).  "Neocortical" means it's in the neocortex, the "new cortex" part of the brain that humans have a lot of and other animals don't.  Soma is body.  But these and Golgi technique are already linked, for the benefit of readers that need more background before they can completely understand the article; add more links in the caption if you think that will help.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Useless article

message: See:
Betz W. Anatomischer Nachweis zweier Gehirncentra. Centralblatt furdie medizinischen Wissenschaften 1874; 12: 578–80, 595–99.
English Translation:
:::-Betz W. Distinction of two nervecentres in the brain. April 1875 Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Sciences 1875; 15: 190–2.
Here is an even earlier description:
:::-Notes of Researches on the Intimate Structure of the Brain.--Third Series. J. Lockhart Clarke Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Vol. 12, (1862 - 1863), pp. 716-722. Published by: The Royal Society. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/112344
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.179.81 (talk • contribs)  21:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to edit the article if you would like to fix this problem.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead is incorrect. Pyramidal neurons were described by others before Cajal. 

message: Is there a reason the title of this article is Pyramidal Cell instead of Pyramidal Neuron?Serotonick (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I could give a reason (based on the literature), but really my attitude is that the choice among plausible names for an article doesn't matter much, as long as all of them take the reader to the same place. Looie496 (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care very much either, but "Pyramidal cell" gives about twice as many results in a Google search compared to "Pyramidal neuron". And in Wikipedia, the most used name is often preferred. Lova Falk talk 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose name change