lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Operculum (brain)

message: This figure appears to show that there are four opercula, which is more-or-less confirmed by my anatomy text book (Thieme atlas of human anatomy, Vol 3, page 198).  Could someone please clarify whether there is one operculum per side, or four, or one operculum with four divisions? Bobsagat (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

message: The top illustration has the sulcus lateralis in red, but the text mentions only the central sulcus. Since the next illustration exposes the insula   after removal of the operculum, I think it appropriate to discuss more about the lateral sulcus. File:Gray717.png does not discuss the lateral sulcus, perhaps we need a source which in fact links up the operculum, and the deep structures named in Gray717.png.  __Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 11:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  sulcus lateralis 

message: I propose that Operculum_(brain) be merged into Parietal Operculum. These are different names to the same region in the brain, and they should be merged into one. Each one of the articles include different information about this region, so i think that merging them wisely will be good. Yarden.h (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I support a merge, but I think Operculum should be the parent article. My (limited) understanding is that frontal, temporal, occipital and parietal opercula are all distinct, but this doesn't warrant a separate article for each, given current material Cmungall (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

text: I oppose the proposed merge. The parietal operculum is the part of the brain's operculum found in the parietal lobe. That is, the parietal operculum is not the same as the operculum - it is part of the operculum. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  11:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Keeping in mind the above, I would support a merge in the opposite direction (ie from Parietal operculum to Operculum (brain)) --LT910001 (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Support a merge in the opposite sense of the proposal, as stated by the editors above. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 05:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: this discusses only the fronto-parietal operculum in homosapiens. other primate brains (quite possibly human) have e.g. an occopital operculum (the dorsal edge of rhesus V1/2) and etc
it's a general term in neuroanatomy. No I'm not writing it, I don't do wikipedia only things that are reviewed by peers and accepted or rejected. but this is wrong fix or don't. 31.6.46.67 (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for highlighting the problem. I hope this has addressed your concerns. Any further criticisms of this or any other Wikipedia neuroanatomy articles would be very welcome. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  16:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  opercula
Talk:Sacral nerves

message: Someone may translate from the spanish wikipedia, it seems it has more info (with sources) 190.60.93.218 (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ` Spanish wikipedia  

message: I have a feeling this should be moved to Sacral nerve.  Anyone agree? -download ׀ talk 17:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to singular version? 

message: Needless fragmentation would be better treated as subtopic of Spinal nerve(s) Iztwoz (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Spinal nerve]]
Talk:Supplementary eye field

message: Comments: I realize the article has improved, but it is graded off of Nov. 18th. The content that was there was good, but there just was not a whole lot of it. This is why the article size was rated a 1, and the references and links were 1. I gave the writing a 1, just because there was not much to read. The article did have a picture, but nothing that made it stand out to be amazing since it was still not the right size article. The newest version of the article has improved - but it still needs more content to be a great article. I think if it continues in the direction that it is going, then it will be fine!  Crowen4 (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Article Critique (Applies to Last Version before November 19) 

message: Hello, thanks for your comments. I have taken them into account and edited my page to be far more informative, and lengthy. I've gotten rid of the saccade trace picture and added three brain maps to make it easier for people to know where the SEF is and where the SEF is relative to the FEF.
Hopefully it is a good article now!
SaswatPanda (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Reviewer 1

message: This article needs more information on each sub-topic and needs to improve on the readability. The author also need to fix his/her writing because there are grammar, verb tense and punctuation error need to be fixed.
===Reply to Tuan===
Hello, I have since edited this article to fix punctuation errors and grammar.
Hopefully you will look at it once more and it will work for you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaswatPanda (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Article Critique By Tuan Nguyen (as of 11/25/2013) 

message: Hello, I have since edited this article to fix punctuation errors and grammar.
Hopefully you will look at it once more and it will work for you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaswatPanda (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Tuan

message: Comments: A lot more detail needs to be added and the article doesn't match the size requirement which is why points have been taken off. Adding the picture makes it nice and visual. 
The references need to be updated. Overall, with more information, it will look great. 
SindhujaPadmanabhan (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Article Critique (Applies to Last Version before November 19)

message: Thank you for your comment. I have since made my article much longer! I think it now meets all of the criteria of the assignment and is now a much nicer article!
SaswatPanda (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Sindhuja
Talk:Sural nerve

message: Small amount of content readily merged into parent articles, with improved ease of reading and better to have content placed on single article rather than needlessly fragmented Tom (LT) (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Lateral calcaneal branches of sural nerve]] 

message: As above Tom (LT) (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Weak oppose anatomical term in common use. A pubmed search finds it arising in article titles, which suggests that it's sufficiently important to keep as a separate page, regardless of the state of the current page. Klbrain (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given the opposition and lack of support. Klbrain (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Lateral dorsal cutaneous nerve]]
Talk:Ace of Swords

message: I can't see how this article could be construed as biased or unbalanced in any way. All it does is state that it is part of the "minor arcana" tarot deck. It doesn't call it minor but it just states that it is a part of it.
::It's not--I removed the tag which was added without any corresponding reasoning on the talk page.--P Todd 00:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Parsa and myself have been have been placing the NPOV tags on the cards. See the talk page at Talk:The World (Tarot card) Since tarot cards were not designed for the occult, the placement of "occult" stub tags does constitute POV and ignores tarot's gaming heritage. These individual card pages offer nothing more than occult speculations and perhaps should be deletedSmiloid 00:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I am suggesting that the information on the individual card pages for the swords suit would be better placed in Suit of swords pageTetron76 (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to
Talk:Parieto-occipital sulcus

message: The second to last line in lead says, "In most cases it contains a submerged gyrus."  Could anyone please expand upon & explain that statement? I can guess what it means, but something more definitive, maybe including saying what gyrus is 'submerged' might be useful. UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello UnderEducatedGeezer Have had quite a good look here and there and whilst it is often referred to in the same context there is nothing else said about it. As it is often mentioned seems reasonable to keep it.?--Iztwoz (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Iztwoz Thanks for looking, and absolutely keep it!  I was just hoping to find out a little more about it, and also about a similar set of phrases I've heard about the cerebral surface, 'interrupted sulcus' and 'bridging gyrus' (the first mentioned on a very interesting youtube by  neurosurgeon Dr. Ribas, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGKwDAHEpcw ). UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

text: @ Have just added a ref to Limiting sulcus on Sulcus page, that has a lot of info including interrupted sulci, and just noticed that the article is by the same Dr. Ribas as the clip (that I haven't looked at yet). If you can enter anything up that would be good.? There does seem to be a number of terms in use that could do with looking at. Also there is mention of both interrupted sulcus and bridging gyri on Medial frontal gyrus page. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  submerged gyrus?
Talk:Superior parietal lobule

message: Isn't it referred to as the Superior Parietal Lobe today? Not Lobule? 165.82.28.171 01:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Sexually dimorphic nucleus

message: This article reads too much like a summary of a medical journal. Anyone care to translate to English?Dudboi (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing Style 

message: In the article it states that "SDN and its homologues exist widely in human, mammal, and some other animal brains, including: the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) in humans"
In my textbook "Neuroscience - Exploring the brain (Enhanced 4th Edtion)" by Mark F. Bear et al. it states that: "In different studies INAH-1, INAH-2, and INAH-3 have all been reported to be larger in men than women. INAH-1 may be the human analogue of the rat SDN, but researchers disagree about whether INAH-1 is dimorphic. The clearest dimorphism appears to be in INAH-3, which was first reported to be twice as large in men as women by Laura Allen, Roger Gorski, and their colleagues at UCLA"  (p.597)
If I understand correctly the article says that INAH3 is homologues but my textbook states that actually INAH1 is the homologues to the SDN even though it might not be dimorphic. 
I'm just a student not an expert. I was wondering if I misunderstand something or if the article contradicts the textbook to a certain extend.
Maybe the article should clarify that INAH-1 is homologues even though INAH-3 is more dimorphic. LeanderLizzard (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  INAH3 or INAH1 analogue to SDN
Talk:Triangular part of inferior frontal gyrus

message: Shouldn't this article be combined with Brodmann area 45? Iamozy (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for Improvement

message: Broca’s area is limited with respect to memory and recall; children do not seem to be unable to consciously search their memories.
WHAT!?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.38.68 (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: double negative
Talk:Superior laryngeal nerve

message: A small stub better presented as part of target page Iztwoz (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Internal laryngeal nerve]] 

message: Small stub better presented as part of target page Iztwoz (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[External laryngeal nerve]]
Talk:Nasopalatine nerve

message: Article says it comes off V2, doesn't it come off V1 (opthalmic division) of trigeminal nerve?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.211.18 (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi ! One of the 2 references I have just added says that it comes from the maxillary nerve (V2). Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nerve supply 
Talk:Trigeminal ganglion

message: The intro needs to be revised to say something like "The Trigeminal ganglion is an X residing in the Y and serving the function of Z" rather than "The trigeminal ganglion resides in Y." I've read the article and still don't know what it is. And I'm a neuroscientist. Debivort 05:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro sentence
Talk:Superior cervical ganglion

message: I have edited the lede as the SCG is NOT responsible for homeostasis: All postsynaptic sympathetic fibers distributed to the head and upper neck are derived from the cell bodies that constitute this ganglion.  Homeostasis in mammals is regulated, for instance for instance by using input from thermoreceptors in the hypothalamus, brain,spinal cord, internal organs, and great veins.  Blood sugar levels are regulated primarily through beta cells of the pancreatic islets.  Etc etc. LookingGlass (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeostasis
Talk:Sympathetic trunk

message: From the image in the infobox: NOTE: THIS IMAGE MERELY DEPICTS PATHWAYS - IT IS NOT ANATOMICALLY CORRECT.  THE EFFERENT SYMPATHETICS EXIT IN A LOOP - ENTERING THE MORE LATERAL WHITE AND EITHER EXITING THE MORE MEDIAL GREY OR TRAVELING UP/DOWN THE CHAIN TO EXIT GREY AT OTHER GANGLIA.  THIS IMAGE SHOULD BE REPLACED OR SUPPLEMENTED.  SEEhttp://home.comcast.net/~wnor/sympatheticchain.jpg FOR CLARIFICATION.  --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the above comment speaking of the 2nd of the current two images, the scheme showing pathways, or the upper anatomical one? Is the above comment true? If so has the image been replaced or supplemented with this info? I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough to know, & don't really follow the above comment, but it seems important if it is true.UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now that, as Doc James clearly said, he's speaking about the "image in the infobox"; not sure why I didn't understand that. UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment moved here
Talk:Neuroergonomics

message: This appears to be a relatively young field, but it seems to be real.  Possible sources include:  , , , plus Neuroergonomics: research and practice, Neuroergonomics: opportunities and challenges of merging cognitive neuroscience with cognitive ergonomics, and more.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Deleted Text:
:History
:The term was first used by Raja Parasuraman for describing the study of brain and behavior at work. A 2007 book gave a systematic overview of this emerging area, describing the theoretical background, basic research, major methods, as well as the new and future areas of application.Parasuraman R., Rizzo M. (Eds.) (2007) Neuroergonomics: The Brain at Work. Oxford University Preess
References showing prior use of term: From Nov 30, 1999. And from Nov 10, 2004.
Either of those is sufficient to disprove. 99.135.175.107 (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   Deleted history falsely attributing coinage of word.
Talk:Sulcus (neuroanatomy)

message: Good information so far. The pictures are helpful as well. Maybe consider using the Carlson textbook from class for any additional information you may need. I found it to be a helpful resource, and it is also a secondary source. Katelyn0902 (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Classmate revisions

message: Hi! Thanks for your edits to this article as part of your class project. I've remodelled the article around a standard 'structure' that we try and apply to all anatomy articles on Wikipedia. That structure can be found here: WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy. We use this structure so that all articles can be read more easily, and so that editors have a guide as to what makes up a 'complete' article. Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from [[WP:ANATOMY]] 

message: 173.61.9.126 (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  consider dental sulcus
Talk:Uncus

message: As a smart and educated person with no real knowledge of anatomy or medicine, I have no idea what this article is about, other than some brain component. It'd be great if someone could make it a little more approachable for the uninitiated. What does this thing do? Where is it? Etc. Jordanp (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowering the lingo
Talk:Postictal state

message: Most of the following section has been removed from the article, due to it being complete and utter nonsense: 
"Postictal bliss (PB) is also reported following seizures. This has been described as a highly blissful feeling associated with the emergence from amnesia, or from "emotional amnesia".  Memories are strongly connected with emotions in that the strongest memories are associated with the strongest emotions.  Subjects experiencing postictal bliss experience disconnectedness from these emotions and an objective "un-emotional" observation of these memories and emotions.  In the case of negative memories, postictal bliss allows escape or release from these memories. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has similar effects.  With additional research, the phenomenon of postictal bliss may provide important insights into the causes of epilepsy, and raises the possibility that epileptic seizures can be adaptive physiological mechanisms, even if they are maladapted."
While postictal bliss may occur, it is certainly not due to a "disconnectedness" from negative memories. Otherwise, all forms of amnesia would be blissful, when in reality they tend to be frightening and disorienting. At the very least, some form of citation is needed before this can go back into the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.188.226 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed: Amnesia
Template talk:New Gods

message: I've created this template with the title of "New Gods", though I really wanted to use "Jack Kirby's Fourth World".  However, the articles seem to only use "Jack Kirby's Fourth World" as a reference to those comics by Kirby in the early 70's, and not anything past that.  Toodiesel 07:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling it "Jack Kirby's New Gods" is a possibility. SamSim (talk) 01:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template creation

message: I added Death of the New Gods to this template in the "Concepts and Items" area.  But I'm not sure if it goes there.  Should I have added another section for it instead? Or do you think it just doesn't belong?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kant2k6 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of the New Gods
Talk:Unipolar neuron

message: I have extended this article, and am boldly reassessing it for
Wikiproject Neuroscience as C class.  I don't think it needs more
text, but to get a higher rating it needs one or two nice pictures. Looie496 (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision

message: The Unipolar cell article is named Unipolar neuron.  The Bipolar neuron article is named Bipolar cell. The Pseudounipolar cell article is named Pseudounipolar neuron.  The Multipolar cell article is named Multipolar neuron.   The Pyramidal neuron article is named the Pyramidal cell.  The granule neuron article is named the Granule cell.  The Anterior horn cell article is named Anterior horn (spinal cord).  Is it ok to flutter back and forth?  SriMesh | talk 01:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pyramidal cell" and "granule cell" are much more commonly used than "pyramidal neuron" or "granule neuron", so I don't think those should be changed.  (I can't recall ever seeing "granule neuron" used, and I have worked on them.)  Concerning the others, I think it would be good to change "bipolar cell" to "bipolar neuron".  I would worry about changing all of them to "cell" because I don't know whether there might be "unipolar cells" somewhere in the body that don't have anything to do with the nervous system. Looie496 (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming conventions

message: article contradicts itself on whether mammal/vertebrate sensory neurons are multipolar, unipolar, etc.
Also, my A&P textbook says that sensory neuron cell bodies are in the posterior root ganglia, which at least as I understand it would be firmly OUTSIDE the CNS (also contradicting the article).
I'm just learning ... hoping an expert can be found to clarify these. 75.174.243.183 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  direct contradictions in article
Talk:Subclavian nerve

message: I am a medical student and the sources compete as to whether the nerve to subclavius (often abbreviated Nsc) contains just C5 or C5 and C6 together.  Can anyone from Ganfyd resolve this?
C5 alone sources:
Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers 2007 
The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Human Anatomic Variation: Opus III
C5 with C6 sources:
Michigan State 
Wikipedia's own Ganfyd 
Bonica's Management of Pain
C5, with mention of C4 and C6:
Anatomy and Human Movement: Structure and Function
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons
-PVSpud! 04:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: There is a desperate need for more scholarly sources for this article!
As the subclavius muscle is quite a niche muscle with more of an accessory function, its nerve is even more niche. It is rarely mentioned in textbooks and research papers.
Any more references would be appreciated. Bibeyjj (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  More citations needed
Talk:Rexed laminae

message: The dorsal horn is not a simple relay station, but a site of significantly complex signal processing. The majority of neurones in laminae-I-III are excititatory or inhibitory interneurones. There are a large number of different circuit motifs that have been found to involve specific types of dorsal horn interneurone, and functions involved in signal processing have been inferred from this. Glycinergic neurones compose about 90% of the inhibitory interneurone in deeper layers of the dorsal horn, whereas they only make up 20% of the inhibitory neurone population in laminae I & II. Parvalbumin-countaining neurones in lamina II, which utilise glycine, have been found to receive input from primary sensory afferents and provide presynaptic input to these terminals, allowing feedforward inhibition and winner-take-all computation. It has been suggested that they play a role in both the refinement information relating to tactile touch, and gating of tactile information being processed as pain in conditions such as allodynia. B5-I interneurones play an important role in the processing of itch sensation, and can suppress itch through the action of dynorphin on delta opioid receptors, or cause fast relief from itch through the presence of competing somatosensory stimulation, for example scratching.
:Moved this info from page - more relevant to posterior grey column and the refs to laminae are related to mice and rat studies.--Iztwoz (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dorsal horn circuitry