lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Cerebellar tonsil

message: Just a note: the cerebellar tonsillar movement through the foramen magnum in response to increased intracranial pressure is called tonsillar herniation. Chiari malformation is a congential defect (with many subdivisions requiring their own Wiki), not a response to increased intracranial pressure. Kvandm91 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: This article does not say what the tonsil is for, anyone? --Alessio.aguirre (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Function
Talk:Otic vesicle

message: Hello, as part of a Wikipedia assignment for Saint Louis University, I may make improvements to this article. Here are a list of references I have found that I plan to incorporate. I may add more articles later if I happen across any. 
1 Chatterjee S, Krausl P, Lufkin T: A symphony of inner ear developmental control genes. BMC Genet 2010, 11:68 doi:10.1186/1471-2156-11-68
2 Noramly, S. and Grainger, R. M. (2002), Determination of the embryonic inner ear. J. Neurobiol., 53: 100–128. doi: 10.1002/neu.10131
3 Appler JM, Goodrich LV. Connecting the ear to the brain: molecular mechanisms of auditory circuit assembly. Progress in neurobiology. 2011;93(4):488-508. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2011.01.004.
4 Freyer L, Aggarwal V, Morrow BE. Dual embryonic origin of the mammalian otic vesicle forming the inner ear. Development (Cambridge, England). 2011;138(24):5403-5414. doi:10.1242/dev.069849. 
Biolprof
Ayebeesung (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

message: *Some of the links are linked to creating a new article page. Some articles may be under different names. For example, I changed fgf since the article was under Fibroblast growth factor. Consider linking the unlinked transcription factors in the intro, or perhaps just link to the homeobox article. 
**I didn't know how to do that, until I saw how you edited it. Thanks for setting up the example! I believe I have fixed all of them now.
*The second paragraph of the intro requires citations for support.
**Thank you! I missed that, and have made appropriate citation changes!
*Phrasing of "Fgf3 and Fgf10 were suggested..." should use "is" instead of were. Consider adding an extra source to support that it is a general consensus of the field and not just one team's hypothesis.
**Fixed this too.
*Consider citing further support for the "Divisions and Fates" section. Specifically the second paragraph.
**Most of this came from one paper that had quite a big of information on this. I'll continue to look for more in the meantime, though
Overall, a very strong article. The images contribute to the article as a whole and the language is concise and easy to read. Cdxaam (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from Cdxaam
Talk:Intermediate dorsal cutaneous nerve

message: Hello. 
I am a member of WikiProject Anatomy, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of anatomy. Since your article has fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct templates on this talk page for verification. Upon review of this article, I'd like to make a few points, as shown:
*Assess articles with class and importance factors
*WP:MED does not cover anatomy, tag removed
I'm glad this article could fall within our scope, and I hope to see it grow large! Many thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Assessment for [[WP:ANATOMY|WikiProject Anatomy]]
Talk:Inferior cluneal nerves

message: Hello. 
I am a member of WikiProject Anatomy, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of anatomy. Since your article has fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct templates on this talk page for verification. Upon review of this article, I'd like to make a few points, as shown:
*Assess articles with class and importance factors
I'm glad this article could fall within our scope, and I hope to see it grow large! Many thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Assessment for [[WP:ANATOMY|WikiProject Anatomy]]
Talk:Cutaneous innervation of the lower limbs

message: This page was renamed in 2019 from "Cutaneous innervation of the lower limbs" to "Nerve supply of the human leg," which is both more specific (human leg only) and more general (not just cutaneous innervation).
The lede is still focussed on cutaneous innervation and needs updating to reflect these changes.
SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede needs update in light of page rename
Talk:Dopaminergic neuron

message: Absolutely, with out a doubt, this article should get merged with dopamine. In the distant future, when every little piece of knowledge is on wikipedia, perhaps it should get made it's own article, where there will be discussion of the significant biophysical and molecular differences between dopaminergic neurons and other neurons. But as it stands, this is adding nothing. Bilz0r 22:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This should be merged with dopamine
Talk:Optic chiasm

message: It is said: more of the nerve-crossing than is normal then: To compensate for lack of crossing is it an excess or a lack of crossing ? This is unclear. --Hamonv (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected this contradiction. For this I looked up and read the cited references. Since the cited references both referred to albino tigers, I merged the two last sentences and shortened the section. Marci68 (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optic chiasm in cats
Talk:Neural tube

message: In the introduction, the article says, "The ectodermal wall of which forms the rudiment of the nervous system."
That's not a complete sentence.
If the intended meaning were obvious, I would have rewritten it into proper English without making an issue, but since the subject is all unknown to me and the paragraph's intention is to define terms, I can't.75.110.108.193 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguity
Talk:Nervous tissue

message: This article incorrectly cites that there are 3 divisions of the nervous system. Unless this applies not only to humans, I've taken the liberty of making the necessary corections and citing the source of my contention. --Animeronin 15:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divisions of the Nervous System 

message: I've also taken note of the missing content in the Structure of a Motor Neuron section. Can someone add the necessary information, particularly those about the synapse? --Animeronin 15:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete Description of Motor Neuron Structure 

message: if you search for gamma motor neuron you end up here, but there's a full article on gamma motorneurons that is much more appropriate. Could someone fix this? thanks
arash fathi  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.250.114 (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: improper redirect

message: Appears to be about a duplicated topic LT910001 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Connective tissue in the peripheral nervous system]] 

message: I'm not sure, is there a reason I'm unaware about that there is a classification for neuroglial cells? If not I will add the information corresponding to the classification given for neurons. Lehession (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you are asking.  What is the problem that concerns you? Looie496 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

text: sorry, I meant that there isn't*. I was just unsure if the classification was left out on purpose or it was just an unfinished article. I've already added it. Lehession (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, now I get it.  Thanks. Looie496 (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification

message: I found most of the content to be plagiarized, or very limited in scope (mostly discussed nerves rather than other nervous tissue), so I replaced most of the text and restructured the article slightly. Lehession (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Lehession. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article content
Talk:Nucleus (neuroanatomy)

message: I'm not sure whether this part of the sentence serves some function: "located deep within the cerebral hemispheres and brainstem". Nuclei are clusters of neurons in the CNS, and I think that part is redundant if not also inaccurate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.74.83 (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. We are a website that develops because of volunteer contributions, so why not give it a go and create an account / edit it yourself! --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing sentence

message: Are nuclei always contained entirely within white matter, or can they be separate structures outside white matter?UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much by definition, nuclei are grey matter. It's certainly possible to have two nuclei adjacent to one another, with little or no white matter in between. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclei only inside white matter in brain? 
Talk:Oligodendrocyte

message: We need to integrate some information about perineuronal oligodendrocytes into this article.
This paper might be of some help:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20846325
Rob Hurt (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Perineuronal Oligodendrocytes

message: What can cause injuries to oligodendrocytes that lead to diseases like multiple sclerosis, and are there ways to prevent these injuries? Tristanbautista17 (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injuries to oligodendrocytes [[User:Tristanbautista17|Tristanbautista17]] ([[User talk:Tristanbautista17|talk]]) 21:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Proisocortex

message: Suggest merging this page with Neocortex. Proisocortex is a stub which would be more suited to both articles on Neocortex page. Iztwoz (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 
Talk:Đỗ

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 06:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-03-12 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: Should you remove this tag. Because this article doesn't solely define a word. It's about a Vietnamese surname —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhn610 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove tag?
Talk:Supraorbital nerve

message: "It passes through the supraorbital foramen, and gives off, in this situation, palpebral filaments to the upper eyelid."
Should this be:
"Frontal nerve passes through the supraorbital foramen, and gives off, in this situation, palpebral filaments (lacrimal nerve) to the upper eyelid." ?
91.158.165.178 (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: It?
Talk:Rhinencephalon

message: "Some references classify other areas of the brain related to perception of smell as rhinencephalon, but areas of the human brain that receive fibers strictly from the olfactory bulb are limited to those of the paleopallium. As such, the rhinencephalon includes the olfactory bulb, the olfactory tract, the olfactory tubercle and striae, the anterior olfactory nucleus and parts of the amygdala and the piriform cortex."
This list of components of the rhinencephalon looks essentially identical to the list given in the paragraph above it. (If you compare the lists, keep in mind that the olfactory tubercle is the same as the anterior perforated substance, according to NeuroNames. "Piriform cortex" should also be synonymous with "prepyriform area".)
How is anything different between these 2 lists? I thought the latter paragraph was supposed to explain how other sources have different definitions of "rhinencephalon", but it ends up with the same list of components. (Or so it seems to me.)
Could it be that this paragraph changed its message in the middle of the first sentence? (Example paraphrase: "Some references classify other areas of brain as part of rhinencephalon, but NONETHELESS, fibers strictly from olfactory bulb are limited to paleopallium. So those references are wrong, and here's the same list we gave above.")
(Disclaimer: I've had trouble trying to figure out whether the terms "rhinencephalon", "paleocortex", and "paleopallium" are all the same, 2 of them the same, or all different. And, if any differences, how they are different. So my paraphrase could be way off or even not make sense. Please take it with a grain of salt.)
If anyone knowledgeable can help fix this problem or say that there is no problem, thanks! 65.102.206.43 (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing paragraph
Talk:Pulvinar nuclei

message: Should this article be named pulvinar, pulvinar nucleus, or pulvinar nuclei? It seems that the pulvinar part of the thalamus is usually called the pulvinar nucleus, but it is also divided into 4 named subnuclei.  It just seems strange to only call it the pulvinar without nucleus in the title. Cmcnicoll (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. Per MEDMOS, we try to align anatomical terms with Terminologia Anatomica unless there's a good reason to override it. A list of the TA terms for the diencephalon is available here. If you scroll down to "A14.1.08.104", the pulvinar itself does not have the term "nuclei" in it. At "A14.1.08.610", we have "nuclei pulvinares", but it is conceivable that there are portions of the pulvinar which are not nuclei (analogous to the White matter of the Arbor vitae.) MeSH and NeuroNames follow a similar convention. But it's a close call, and I wouldn't object if it were moved. --Arcadian (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree this might be considered splitting hairs.  I looked up the entry in Stedman's, which was pulvinar, and it said that the TA term is pulvinar nuclei (nuclei pulvinares), as you noted.  I then found the TA in google books, and it looks like the source of confusion is the difference in what we are describing.  Pulvinar thalami (A14.1.08.104), aka Pulvinar, is an external feature of the diencephalon.  Pulvinar nuclei (A14.1.08.610) refers to the internal feature of the diencephalon.  So the answer to the question depends on what the article is written about.  I think that the article is mainly about the nuclei, and should be moved to Pulvinar nuclei.  The intro could read something like "The pulvinar nuclei (nuclei pulvinares) are a collection of nuclei located in the pulvinar thalamus.  The pulvinar part is the most posterior region of the thalamus." Cmcnicoll (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Done. --Arcadian (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: Pulvinar is definitely the most posterior part, look: http://brainmaps.org/ajax-viewer.php?datid=15&sname=smi32-66&hname=lateral%20nucleus%20of%20pulvinar&hlabel=Pll
It is also true in macaque and bush baby.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palpatineli (talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most posterior part of thalamus
Talk:Nuclear chain fiber

message: These are INTRAfusal, not extra as previously described.  INTRA refers to being inside the sensory spindle, while EXTRAfusal fibers are the main contractile fibers (S,FR and FF) Bakerstmd 02:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: INTRAfusal

message: I dont actually think that the section on golgi tendons should be mentioned on this page, except perhaps as a "see also". Bakerstmd 02:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GTOs?
Talk:Transverse temporal gyrus

message: Interestingly: “We found that the size of left HG, but not right HG, made the difference,” said Northwestern’s Catherine Warrier...  I wrote a note saying it would be interesting to see a study with handedness as a factor.  Brian Pearson 02:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of Heschl’s Gyrus predictive of language learning ability? 

message: Please would an interested editor assess the abandoned user draft at User:Teahughes/sandbox, incorporate what is useful, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 22:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userspace draft
Talk:Renshaw cell

message: I tried to arrange the References, but they still need work... --GBMorgagni (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Was he born in 1908, or 1911? Online sources disagree. Equinox ◑ 22:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birdsey Renshaw's birth date
Talk:Planum temporale

message: It is said that a right specialization of planum temporale "could be interrupting or impeding information flow between Wernickes and Broca's, which are on the left hemisphere." I would think that there information flow would take longer but wouldn't really be impeded.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.247.134 (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atypical Development 

message: My impression is that Wernicke's area is defined more functionally, rather than physically, and at any rate is usually more associated with supramarginal gyrus than with planum temporale.
I was always taught that the planum temporale is the dorsal aspect of the temporal lobe (planum == plateau, temporale == temporal), plain and simple --not just the part that's caudal to Heschel's.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.190.103 (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wernicke's Area
Talk:Neuroesthetics

message: — Assignment last updated by Isamelia6 (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Perception
Talk:Kosik (elephant)

message: Elephants have a humanlike neuron count. The claim that "most of it is used to control the big body" is absurd, considering the fact that human stroke patients regain language skills faster if they learn to juggle at the same time, not slower as the theory of brain capacity theft predicts. Modern research on language acquisition shows that there is no difference in kind between language aquisition and normal associative learning, only a difference in complex neurological precision, which is exactly what the good neuron count provides. If he got the chance to point at symbols for words instead of having to talk with his trunk that like all elephant trunks was poorly adapted to human speech, he probably could have had a decent conversation. The fact that elephants of course lack the uniquely human naive indoctrinability may make language a bit more difficult for them, but not unsurmountably so. Elephants are probably the only nonhumans on Earth capable of investigating the causes of faliure, which is important for asking questions.
95.209.11.241 (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Now if you can cite even a fraction of this information, we would be able to use it. Otherwise this does not help improve the article and doesn't really belong here. Don Lammers (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  He most likely understood more than he could speak. 
Talk:Parallel fiber

message: This article is terrible, and it was basically just a badly maintained stub before the merge. Moreover, the important information is contained in the article targeted by the redirect.
Nonetheless, it should be unmerged, and stripped down to a stub which relates "parallel fiber" to "granular cell". While the fibers are associated (attached to) the referenced cells, that's not necessarily an intuitive leap for a layman. Broad cell types often exist within/as divergent structures in an organism, so it's not a given that the linked cell type *always* forms these fibers, nor is it obvious where within the granular cell article to find this information.
The primary purpose of discussing "parallel fibers" is to explain the "dendritic environment" of Purkinje cells. It is the larger emergent structure that is of interest in this case, not the actual granular cell body. Dumping to the link article from that perspective  creates a frustrating and confusing experience.
The links to "parallel fibers" on that page do make sense, because it's a unique structure that requires some definition. They're also commensurate with the links to "climbing fibers" - a (somewhat higher quality) page that has notably been maintained.
Point is, as bad as this page is, it's much better to strip it down to a stub that explains they grow from cerebellar granule cells (+link) than redirect right into the granule cell article. 104.183.195.34 (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should be unmerged
Talk:Neurotmesis

message: Established page with references ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is definitely a need for a merge. There are too many problems for the Peripheral Nerve Injury: Neurotmesis page to stand on its own. --Iamozy (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Peripheral Nerve Injury: Neurotmesis]]
Talk:Periaqueductal gray

message: It would be nice if the article didn't have a section describing various lesions and their effects on behaviour, and then at the end make the vague and poorly supported statement "If there is a lesion in the PAG, then consciousness is lost." 142.25.33.105 (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out.  I have removed that section of the article, as the statements are at best oversimplified, and in any case are not adequately supported by the cited sources.  I don't even think it is possible to lesion the PAG without also damaging other critical circuitry that is intermingled with its elements. Looie496 (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction
Talk:Phenylhydrazine

message: *Why does glucosazone redirect here. It needs it's own page. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: because glucose + this = glucosazone.  it is a form of osazone; have redirected there and will add a bit about it there. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: redirect

message: There's a mistake here in the preparation of phenylhydrazine. If you react the diazonium salt with sodium sulfite you get a sulfonyl derivative and not the intended phenylhydrazine as you can seen in diazonium salt.Claudio Pistilli (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's cited. Check the cite and tell us what it says. But I also just checked SciFinder: of 103 specific reaction matches for aniline->phenylhydrazine, 24 note use of Na2SO3 or NaHSO3 as the reducing agent (only 2 note use of Na2S2O5). DMacks (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Preparation
Talk:Sensorimotor rhythm

message: I realize that there's been various edits in the history that deal with the range of frequencies for SMR, but it does seem to me from reading the cited reference, as well as many citations such as http://www.bmedreport.com/archives/1721 and . Based on this, I've changed it from 8-12 to 12-15Hz.
ClintGoss (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  SMR Frequency Range
Talk:Stellate ganglion

message: Why show the Gray's plate if the stellate ganglion isn't even shown?  :(  Savonnn (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

message: It would be nice to add in a sentence on usage of stellate ganglion block in PTSD. Although not proven effective, it seems to be a common treatment, at least in military medicine. Pollira (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  PTSD 

message: Not totally on board with the statement that a block "shows great potential as a means of reducing the number of hot flushes and night awakenings suffered by breast cancer survivors and women experiencing extreme menopause". 
Citation (now dead) points to the Lancet (presumably this article, in Lancet Oncology), but a more recent literature review casts some doubt on the efficacy technique. Thoughts? rmacd (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stellate ganglion block
Talk:Badoit

message: There is more information about Badoit on the French Wikipedia, I'll try to translate it as time allows -- http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badoit . In any case, Badoit has an interesting history, and is my favorite sparking water; I wish they sold it in the US... oh well, just means more trips to France! Trisweb 06:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled