lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Brodmann area 20

message: "Brodmann area 20 is a subdivision of the cerebral cortex of the guenon defined on the basis of cytoarchitecture."
Errr..Guenon links to an article about a type of monkey, and I'm pretty sure the article is talking about a part of the human brain. Anyone know what that sentence is actually referring to? --Egregius (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Brodmann area 11

message: External Links are redundant now that copied text has been attributed, however, I left them in place because they do provide a little more description of external pages. Josh Powell (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Fornix (neuroanatomy)

message: I've removed this:
:"In ancient Rome, prostitutes found the best place for soliciting business was underneath the arches of the Colosseum. Men whose passions were aroused by violence of the games found it hard to resist the women.http://www.mindlesscrap.com/origins/more-a.htm"
While this is probably true, it should go in the Fornication article (though it needs a more substantive source). -- MarcoTolo 15:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: Small stub better presented as subtopic of Fornix Iztwoz (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Columns of fornix]] 

message: Small stub better presented as subtopic of Fornix Iztwoz (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Crus of fornix]] 

message: Small stub better presented as subtopic of Fornix Iztwoz (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Commissure of fornix]] 

message: * https://neuroscientificallychallenged.com/blog/know-your-brain-fornix
2a02:587:410b:7800:ac8e:55b2:f811:fbbd (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add more data about function, connectivity and types of sickness
Talk:Claustrum

message: Through the Swedish science-paper "Illustrerad Vetenskap" i have learned that it is theorised that the Claustrum could be the seat of the conciousness (nr 16/2008). Could maybe someone verify this information and potentially make a valuable addition to the article? Note that the paper is very well-regarded in Sweden.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.10.212 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The seat of the conciousness 

message: Could we have a little plainer english in the opening paragraph involving the word 'brain'.  After reading it I still had no idea where this thing was.
IceDragon64 (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where? 

message: Please avoid using words such as "recent" when editing Wikipedia. I found this sentence fragment today, "...a recent study in primates has shown...", but the study is over 6 years old as I type this, and no one in this field considers that "recent". It will only get worse. In 10 years that "recent" will refer to a 16 year old article! Please use "...a November 2010 study in primates has shown...". This version never ages, and it allows the reader to decide for themselves if it is "recent" or "old". Nick Beeson (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent 

message: If anyone is feeling frisky be sure to add a link to the k-opioid receptor page which is a goldmine on the claustrum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Κ-opioid_receptor  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.72.199.211 (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section pointing to Kappa Opioid receptors
Talk:Grey column

message: # Quality of the information: 2 Good time range of sources 
# Article size: 2 (15,334 bytes)
# Readability: 1  More links would be helpful, some sentence structures could be improved for clarity but overall good "
# References: 2  More citations in the Role in Pain System and Lateral Grey Column sections would be helpful.
# Links: 2  Could add more but sufficient linking and a red link Haptic" and "nociceptive" can be linked. "Analgesics" can also be linked.
# Responsive to Comments: 2 no comments so no need for response
# Formatting: 2 Formatting is a little confusing more of an intro about the three separate types may help to orient the reader. Pictures/diagrams would be extremely helpful
# Writing: 1 Capitalize Laminae in the sentence "laminae III and IV....". The article switches between the European spelling "grey" and the American spelling "gray".
# Used Real Name: 2
# Is Outstanding in some way: 1 Good article but not outstanding
Total: 17/20
Jsiemer3 (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the feedback Jessica. I standardized the page to only use one spelling of "grey". I will also add those links you suggested. Bsridhar6 (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I will work on restructuring some of the sentences. Thanks for the feedback. Bsridhar6 (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I added a picture as you suggested. Thanks. Bsridhar6 (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the feedback.Bsridhar6 (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Student peer reviews

message: Students: please note that the headers (titles) of each section are incorrectly capitalized, per MOS:CAPS. Please fix it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the feedback and link to the MOS, Tryptofish. I changed the sections headers to sentence case as listed in the link you provided. Bsridhar6 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section headers 

message: A small stub all of which covered in Grey column and in more detail Iztwoz (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Spinal cord horn]]
Talk:Adequate stimulus

message: Here are a few of my suggestions: For “stimulus is adequate enough to signal the brain…”, I would say “stimulus reaches a minimum threshold to signal the brain…” . Otherwise, you are explaining a topic with its own word.  Also, adding links for visual, olfaction, etc. to Wikipedia pages under Categorizations of Receptor to help people do additional research on those terms.  Other than that, good job editing the article!CDOcean (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: BIOG 1250: Comments for Nigist1921
Talk:Kaitaia

message: Some of the information on the page and the external links are currently out of date e.g. 'Kaitaia School' is called 'Kaitaia Primary School' and the roll information is now incorrect as Kaitaia College has well in excess of 900 students. This needs to be changed but references need to be found to collaborate the information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigis777 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out Of Date Information 

message: The article says Kaitaia "....is the only airport in the upper Far North District.".  What about Kerikeri? Its 60 k away and to fly there from Kaitaia your heading is 111 deg. That's not far off due west, so  they are both in the "upper" bit of the district. Moriori (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Really?
Talk:Arcuate nucleus

message: My answer to this question is no, as far as I'm concerned tanycytes are a kind of ependymal cells, opposed to what is currently being said in the article. I'm changing it now but anybody is free to prove me wrong.--C39 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are tanycytes a kind of astrocytes?

message: "Infundibular nucleus" redirects here, but this term is not explained in the article. -- Beland 17:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion request

message: Surely the statement that POMC neurones are stimulated by ghrelin is erroneous; ghrelin is realeased from the empty stomach to signal hunger and POMC neurones stimulate the VMH satiety centre! Icosahedron (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghrelin
Talk:Conduction aphasia

message: The last part is incorrect. Conduction aphasia does NOT result from a disconnection between Broca's area and Wernike's Area. In fact, it is caused from a Cortical Disorder such as lesion to cortical areas such as: SPT, posterior STG (wernike's area) and/or SMG. The notion that a disconnection between Broca's and Wernike's area causes Conduction aphasia is 15-20 years old and still needs to be revised in many textbooks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.69.173 (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The
Talk:Cerebral circulation

message: Readily merged. Benefits readers by having information in one place. Needlessly fragmented, and relate to the same topic. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Cerebral blood flow]] 
Talk:Cortical minicolumn

message: How can there be 100 neurons in a minicolumn and 2E8 minicolumns in the human brain?  That would be only 20 billion neurons, but there are 100 billion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.155.48 (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A cortical minicolumn constitute a computational unit of the cerebral cortex, and the cerebral cortex is only a part of the brain. 2001:4644:13BE:0:EA5B:E692:C03F:CD3E (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number in Brain? 

message: Some of this seems like it was written by someone for whom English is not their first language and/or isn't really capable of composing thoughts.  "Cells in 50 μm minicolumn all have the same receptive field; adjacent minicolumns may have different fields" doesn't make much sense.  Are we to conclude that cells in a 40 μm minicolumn don't have the same receptive field??  Is this sentence somehow related to the only other sentence in the same paragraph regarding an alternate term for minicolumns?  Another example: "Larger sizes may not be human minicolumns... macaque monkey... 31μm... cat... 56μm" yet nowhere is "human" diameter given so that "Larger" has reference.  If the article's default species is "human" it should be stated up front so the numbers have context.  Moreover, it is misleading to launch into such comparisons without also commenting on the difference in neuron sizes since they do vary quite dramatically.  Jim Bowery (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  English language cleanup needed?
Talk:Magnocellular cell

message: Content below was originally source to a primary source; this is not OK per WP:MEDRS
;Prosopagnosia
Prosopagnosia is a disability to recognise familiar face identity. People with this condition can see faces clearly, but do not have recognition of identity of the face. The acquired version of prosopagnosia is associated with brain damage while the developmental prosopagnosia is associated with a delayed interrogation of magnocellular and parvocellular inputs in forming a face percept.
Our article on Prosopagnosia doesn't mention magnocellular cells or the LGN.  Did a pubmed search for reviews here and found one ref  which looks promising as it discusses LGN but I can't get access to that right now.  Could perhaps be used to support this content.  Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prosopagnosia content 

message: The structure section mainly focuses on the LGN as a whole.
It's unclear from the structure section which neurons (parasol or midget) actually supply the magnocellular cells in the LGN.
The reader has to go to the lead of Parasol_cell to find out that it is Parasol retinal ganglion cells that actually synapse with the magnocellular neurons.
Whilst I do feel it is definitely necessary to explain that 3 types of ganglion cells supply the LGN, this section also needs to clearly specify what input the magnocellular neurons have.
Vitreology (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure
Talk:End-plate potential

message: The section on MEPPS says that each acetylcholine filled vesicle released triggers a ~0.5mV change in potential of the post-synaptic membrane. The next section (Threshold Potential) states that approximately 35 vesicles result in a 35mV depolarization, suggesting an average effect of 1mV per vesicle. It seems that this is either a mistake to be corrected, or that a short explanation for the discrepancy should be added. --DanHomerick (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Median eminence

message: A small swelling of the tuber cinerum posterior to the infundibulum - "atop the pituitary stalk'''
The last part of this sentence cannot be the case, or makes no sense. That is to say the anatomical area or structure referred to - the median eminence cannot be posterior to the infundibulum and also atop the infundibulum (pituitary stalk). 
Unless one is defining the infundibulum and the pituitary stalks differently. And they are not. 
The median eminence is better described as a gray locus or nucleus situated behind and not atop the pituitary stalk
Furthermore the diagram employed makes no sense in this district - the posterior aspect of the IIIrd ventricle. And this is part of the problem. 
The diagram does not allow situating the median eminence. 
There is no space between the third ventricle and the median eminence as this diagram suggests. Although I am not an anatomist, and I have not dissected this part of the brain (IIIrd) ventricle and its environs, I have never seen an anatomical diagram that has a space between the third ventricle and the median eminence, or for that mater the space under and posterior to the third ventricle as this diagram depicts. 
Cortexmirabile@yahoo.com Cortexmirabile (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Axonotmesis

message: Axonotmesis = Sunderland Class II 
Neurotmesis = Sunderland Class III, IV, V  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.51.0 (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axonotmesis = Sunderland Class II only 

message: Axonotmesis = Sunderland Class II 
Neurotmesis = Sunderland Class III, IV, V  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.51.0 (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axonotmesis = Sunderland Class II only
Talk:Barrel cortex

message: Hi all, I'm expanding the page and restructuring it so that it is a little more balanced. I'm also trying to make it less technical by introducing and explaining some of the jargon. However, as an inclusionist I'm loath to entirely cut out the section on experience-dependent plasticity, even thought it is quite technical.
I'd also like to convert all the notes to references. If anyone could help out it would save me from going brain dead! Keepstherainoff (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Redrafting - June 2016

message: Barrels refer not just to representations of the whiskers in S1, but to all of the dark-staining 'blobs' in S1, so therea are hindlimb barrels, etc.. The most common barrels mentioned are the whisker barrels. So, this article is just inaccurate, but relatively easy to fix. No time now for me, but someone should fix it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.225.228 (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Corticobulbar tract

message: Can someone confirm or refute that the upper and not the lower facial muscles are bilaterally innervated by descending corticobulbar tracts. My understanding was that frontalis control was preserved in upper motor neuron lesions suggesting the facial nerve nucleus receives bilateral input from descending pathways.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcal (talk • contribs) 07:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed, how this fact hasn't been changed yet I don't know, but I'm going to change the article to reflect that the upper facial nucleus receives bilateral cortex innervation whereas the lower facial nucleus receives contralateral inntervation. -- Bubbachuck (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upper Vs Lower Facial Muscles are Bilaterally Innervated? 

message: From what we have learned in Neuroanatomy, all the CN's except VII and XII are bilateral. I didn't want to change it without first double checking Haines Neuroanatomy
Rrten00 (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unilateral innervation 

message: What does it mean that the corticobulbar tract is a two neuron white matter motor pathway?  Mustn't there be more than two neurons (axons) in such a tract?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnderEducatedGeezer (talk • contribs) 18:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  TWO NEURON motor pathway?
Talk:Chemoreceptor trigger zone

message: Can we get an updated source to cover the facts sourced to old papers? Biosthmors (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  1968 is too old 

message: I'm not sure the new lead is an improvement. I restored the old version. Biosthmors (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:LEAD]] 

message: I want to bring attention to the need for general editing of this article to improve the reading quality. I hope to slowly improve the sentence structure here and there when I am able. Jayhvvip (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs improvement  

message: Wikiation (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't this article be merged with [[Area postrema]]?
Talk:Lateral ventricles

message: Abstruse to have a separate article. Easier for readers if content is contained on page of primary article. Readily integrated. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Support  --Iztwoz (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Body of lateral ventricle]]
Talk:Archicortex

message: There are several inconsistencies and contradictions which make the article incomprehensible. 
"[Archicortex] is any cortex with fewer than six layers, specifically three layered hippocampal cortexes." and the immediately following  "[Archicortex] is necessary for hippocampus formation." and finally "Signals being sent from the limbic lobe to the hippocampal formations can go via the archicortex as an intermediate."
The first sentence unambiguously states that the hippocampus is part of the archicortex, while the second suggests that the archicortex and the hippocampal formation are two seperate structures by stating that the hippocampal formation is dependent upon the archicortex (and thus not part of it). Finally, the last sentence also indicates that the hippocampus is not archicortex, by stating that input to the hippocampus might enter via the archicortex, whereas if the hippocampus was part of the archicortex, this last sentence would be tautological. 
The spelling mistakes also don't do the article any good.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.79.42 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible 

message: Compare first sentence of this article to the one of paleocortex:
Paleocortex is a type of cortical tissue that consists of three cortical laminae (layers of neuronal cell bodies).[1] In comparison, the neocortex has six layers and the archicortex has three or four layers.
Archicortex is a type of cortical tissue that consists of three cortical laminae (layers of neuronal cell bodies).[1] It has fewer laminae than both neocortex, which has six, and paleocortex, which has either four or five.
   I'm no expert nor a wiki-editor, just wanted to raise awareness!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.14.58 (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: something is fishy

message: Propose merge of Archicortex into Allocortex. This is a stub, and is a subtopic of allocortex. Information on one page could provoke its improvement. Iztwoz (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: The article overall looks good. The Lead hasn't been updated to reflect the new content; a sentence on structure & a sentence on memory should be added. The Lead also includes information that is not present in the article, making it overly detailed. Good content, though. Watch your tone: "Unlike the neocortex, current theories of the archicortex argue that it performs simple memorization without changing the input's format in any complex manner." This statement only presents one argument of current theories. Is this the only current theory? All the sources are good, but some aren't current (1971). Check the writing: "Archicortex is unable to classify inputs." Consider adding a "the" in front of "archicortex" here. The content is well-organized though. The article is definitely more complete & well cited.Annakaji (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review
Talk:Inferior olivary nucleus

message: Needs much more info about climbing fibers and association with Purkinje cells of cerebellum!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.52.14.2 (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs

message: can someone put the function of the inferior olivary nucleus on here please?
:I believe the function is not understood.  As best I could figure out from reading on it is it integrates info from several sources and outputs to the inferior cerebellum pedunkle as powerful excitatory synapases on purkinje cells.  I checked two different neuroanatomy texts.  --Drewlew (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After some more studying I'd say the inferior olive is in some capacity involved in unconscious coordinated movement based upon where it's inputs come from and where it's output goes.  I can't find a source to say this or I'd add it to the page.--Drewlew (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: can
Talk:Cerebellar vermis

message: There should be some input on the role of the vermis on affect, particularly major depressive illness. Fletcherbrian (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vermis and  major depressive illness 

message: I was wondering if anyone thinks that more could be added to this article concerning the effects of autism on the vermis? Porterq (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like it's worth a few sentences, but anything more would IMO be out of scope for the page. I'll use your source to add some information to the page. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The effect of autism on the vermis
Talk:Filum terminale

message: I found a Google preview of a book which also claims that there are such vestigial nerve fibres in the filum terminale:
https://books.google.de/books?id=0NaMiW1iq2kC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=nerve+fibres+in+filum+terminale&source=bl&ots=tnV5cWbDkP&sig=N3THxmNp7zRsWcyFoQKfeVJdE30&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX5siqjN7PAhXDUBQKHaD_DqQQ6AEIajAO#v=onepage&q=nerve%20fibres%20in%20filum%20terminale&f=false
--79.243.227.111 (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it was in the text of the public domain edition of Gray's anatomy, this was never really in question, but I did source it to a modern edition. BiologicalMe (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested statement about vestigial 2nd and 3rd coccygeal nerves