Talk:Pacinian corpuscle

message: someone removed the Rayleigh waves reference because they believe that it's incorrect; could they check the Rayleigh waves articles, because it references pacinian corpuscles as well.--Confuzion 21:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.vcu.edu/anatomy/OB/Skin~1/sld019.htm
** In Pacinian corpuscle on Mon Jul 17 14:58:26 2006, 404 Not Found
** In Pacinian corpuscle on Thu Jul 27 00:37:53 2006, 404 Not Found
----maru   (talk)  contribs 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: This bot has detected that this page contains an image, :Image:Skin.jpg, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at :File:Skin.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: eh, personally I think the replacement is inferior due to the lack of percision in depicting the structures, and the increased effort to identify structures via their labels.--Δζ (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Skin.jpg]] 

message: The following link says the golgi mazzoni corpuscles are in both fingertips and nipples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erogenous_zone#Chest   Is this correct?  I've not been able to access the science article cited for this statement.  Can someone check or provide an independent citation/view as to this issue?--Δζ (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golgi Mazzoni corpuscles only in the fingertips or in the fingertips and in the nipples/ areolas (sp) ? 

message: I wonder why the Pacinian corpuscle has changed to Lamellar corpuscle recently, and also the Meissner's has changed to Tacitile corpuscle; I'm sure anyone would wonder why. Has there been a congress recently, in which such decisions have been made? Anybody?  Meral Rc. 05:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethymology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lamellar corpuscle. 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/20051216052440/http://www.vcu.edu/anatomy/OB/Skin~1/sld019.htm to http://www.vcu.edu/anatomy/OB/Skin~1/sld019.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can someone please explain why the term "Pacinian corpuscle" has been removed from the current page?  A recent history included (correctly, IMHO) this term in the first line, but it has now  been removed, to wit: "Lamellar corpuscles, or Pacinian corpuscles, are one of the four major...". In all my years in the field, I have never heard these sensory endings referred to by any other name.
Thank you Dragonfly360 (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on missing term "Pacinian corpuscle" 

message: Dear Iztwoz,
I saw that you have undone my edits on the Pacinian corpuscle (PC) page on Wikipedia and I understand your concern and taken proper care of that in my modified edit. To clarify my intended edits, there were multiple misleading information on this page which must be corrected. My intention is not to promote my thesis. I want Wikipedia to present correct information clearly for the benefit of students.
The mistakes or misleading information which were there earlier on that page:
# Discovery of the PC is not including name of Vater who 100 years before Pacini observed and reported it. If you do not believe, please look at Section-3.1 of my thesis for the full history with further references. 
# PC was referred as a cell which is completely wrong. It is a system/sub-system involving multiple type of cells. 
# They are found not only in glabrous skin but also in hirsute skin. They are found even out side the skin. Please look at Table-2.4 of my thesis. 
# Pressure / force is not always static or quasi-static. It could be dynamic leading to vibration or dynamic deformation.
# Not all PCs respond well to high frequency vibration. Few of them are slow adaptive too. Please look at Section-2.5.5 of my thesis to break the myth that all PCs are rapid adaptive and detects only high frequency vibration.
It is painful seeing many journal papers I receive for reviewing just mention those misleading information present on Wikipedia in their papers. Please help Wikipedia to present correct information so that students would not be misleading by Wikipedia. I have no problem if you find those corrections do not need any reference.
I accept my limitation that due to time constraint I can not put hundreds of primary references in Wikipedia to correct these misleading information after putting them in my thesis long back which is freely accessible too. I am not biased to any researcher even to myself.
Anyhow, thanks a lot for concerning about this page and I hope you too have a special interest on this fascinating mechanoreceptor, the Pacinian Corpuscle.
I have already shifted the history of discovery in a separate section.
Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biswas a (talk • contribs) 09:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  On editing the Pacinian corpuscle page on Wikipedia