Talk:Nervous system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Neuroscience article is part of WikiProject: Neuroscience, whose aim is to maintain accurate, referenced, comprehendable neuroscience-related information on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or leave comments at the WikiProject: Neuroscience talk page.

Contents 1 Old discussion 2 Zootomy 3 Question moved from "Anatomy" section of article 4 Conflicting definitions. 5 Missing info 6 Images 7 Restrict editing? 8 Diabetes section seems odd

[edit] Old discussion

"rapidly" is a POV term. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Arrant nonsense. Salsa Shark 07:59, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Speed and time are relative, depending upon the observer. It is your opinion whether something is fast or slow. Lirath Q. Pynnor

If the choices are common scientific terminology or that crock, then let it be common scientific terminology. Salsa Shark 08:03, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you want to note that some refer to this as the "rapid signalling" system; that, of course, I have no objection to. But you cannot define it as "rapid" without noting what it is rapid in comparison to. Lirath Q. Pynnor

'Rapid signalling' is the accepted scientific term, and the article is written in the context of scientific discourse. Calling it POV, or weaseling 'some refer to', is no different from the hobbyhorse topics of the various persistent vandals that have come through here who don't know how to game the system so well. Salsa Shark 08:31, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Doing a quick Google search indicates that rapid signaling or rapid signalling is indeed an accepted term in the field. As a secondary source, Wikipedia shouldn't be trying hard to redefine entire industries or vocabularies. I would propose to italicize it, as a compromise? Fuzheado 08:33, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I did. Apparently that still doesn't please...

The article on information is quite clear that it is inappropriate to refer to neural "information" as anything but "information". Lirath Q. Pynnor

People editing this article should be aware that Lirath does this at every article he visits, whether he knows anything about the subject or not. His edits should be reverted and he should be ignored until he gets bored and goes away. Adam 09:07, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have asked you before to refrain from personal attacks. Lirath Q. Pynnor

At the Village Pump I have nominated Lir for banning. Lir, you might like to rise to your defense. Assistant prosecutors would also be welcome. 168... 19:03, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The topic has been moved to Wikipedia:Problem_users#User:Lir (again). Peak 05:58, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Zootomy

I don't see how zootomy is especially "narrow" of a field. In any case, I felt neuroscience deserved mention as well. Since it is apparent that we will continue to conflict on various biology issues; I urge you to refrain from merely reverting and deleting my edits -- try to understand why I might want to make such an edit, and think of some way you could modify the edit so that it is more palatable to you. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Actually, I didn't "revert" your page, I merely deleted two (what I felt were) superfluous words. I left all of the rest of your edits perfectly intact. Please check the history. "Zootomy" is not a common term and if lay readers of Wikipedia come across that, they might genuinely wonder, why am I reading about the nervous system in zootomy? If you must include it, put it in a See also at the bottom of the page, and keep neuroscience in the "In ..." prefix section. Think about writing the article in Wikipedia:News style, keep the intro short, tight and to the point, and you can get detailed and technical later. This dittos for the changes to the DNA article.

I did actually try see what you were doing, but I don't think that every biology article, needs to have "In such-and-such discipline" before defining the term, especially when there's only one common context that it is normally used. It certainly has a place in disambiguation pages, or where there are multiple senses of a word, such as law (scientific law, vs "legal" law). I see that it useful to have the link for doing clever things with "What links" here and "Related articles", but there might be a better way of doing this than the "In ..." prefix at the beginning of the article. There is a new category system that is due to come online soon, hopefully that will help this problem. --Lexor 11:55, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I highly doubt anyone will wonder "is the zootomical nervous system different from what I want"; in any case, the addition of neuroscience will certainly clarify that. Technical articles should have prominent starting links back to their root academic discipline; to facilitate easier browsing. Lirath Q. Pynnor

My point is that zootomy is not a commonly known name of a discipline, I rarely hear it used at all these days (it gets a grand total of 779 hits on Google: perhaps you mean zoology, which is more well-known, gets about 1,260,000 Google hits?), but neuroscience is. I understood the usefulness of noting/linking the academic discipline (see my comments above), but including it at the beginning of the article in every article, isn't the best way (yes, in some cases I agree it is esp. to disambiguate it). The category system is designed for that. Meanwhile let's try and come up with a better way faciliate the goal you wish to achieve but preserve readability. I suggest linking from and including at the end of the article List of biology topics, I try and keep this list up-to-date, and the precise purpose of this page is to maintain such links. --Lexor 12:17, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This should be merged with central nervous system article. I made a few corrections and clarifications to this one. icut4u 18:36, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, the nervous system incorporates the central nervous system AND the periphreal nervous system. In "lower" animals, there's pretty much just "the nervous system". Sayeth 23:03, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Quite right, and hence no need for two...I would suggest one article to cover it all and a redirect function, thereby allowing those who go to either to get the information. A lot of redundancy, I think, but perhaps that's what people prefer, and, in any case, I do not want to tackle it myself. icut4u 23:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Question moved from "Anatomy" section of article

what about chemical signaling?

[edit] Conflicting definitions.

There are different and conflicting divisions of the nervous system on Wikipedia. One divides the PNS into a sensory and motoric part, and then divides the motoric part into the ANS and somatic nervous system. The other division is simply of the PNS into the ANS and somatic nervous system, with the latter also including sensory (afferent) nerve fibres. I have changed this page to conform to the latter definition. Does anyone have any idea which definition is most prevalent? It's important that different articles on Wikipedia at least the same definition.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juicy fisheye (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Missing info

Cells in a nervous system often because of their functions cannot metabolise proteins for energy in cellular respiration, and rely mostly on carbohydrates. If carbohydrates are lacking, the body must break down fat into fatty acids and glycerol, then the fatty acids into ketone bodies the cells can use.

the above section is not complete.esp first line.please look into it.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.21.154.112 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Images

Please if you get the chance add some images which are pretty easy to find of the nervous system on google this would help those of us that need to see that object in front of us to better understand it. Also i feel the nervous system is too extensive for one person to be working on the subject alone, there are just way too many things the nervous system covers.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Northery84 (talk • contribs) .

• I created a diagram myself of the human nervous system and added it onto the article. Hopefully it adds on well to the article.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restrict editing?

I suggest this page be restricted to editing by registered accounts, given the vandalism it has undergone. Robin S 19:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like you and others have done a good job of catching it and reverting it, and I'm willing to keep an eye on the page as well. Usually Semi-protection is reserved for articles that are hit very hard by vandalism, e.g. so rapid fire it's hard to revert fast enough (like George W. Bush). It looks like this page has only been edited 5 times in the past three days, so I don't think it meets that. In my opinion it's best to avoid protecting and semi-protecting whenever possible, especially since people frequently edit as IPs and discover how fun it is (it's how I got involved). So I'd suggest holding off on semi-protection untill we run out of other options. delldot | talk 00:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diabetes section seems odd

The final section on the relationship between diabetes and the nervous system seems problematic for a couple of reasons--for starters, it's so short that it's difficult to make sense of, but primarily it's completely out of the flow of the rest of the article, which is painfully obvious when you look at the table of contents. Surely there are hundreds of diseases that affect the nervous system, but just as surely this is not the place to discuss them. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say someone involved in the project included that text and the link in order to draw attention to it. Drlith 13:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)