Talk:Anatomical plane

Anatomy: Meta High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to The field of anatomy.

Recreation

I've re-created this article as a fork: --LT910001 (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section in anatomical terms of location is becoming very large and warrants its own section.

Proposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plans to merge the individual planes article here.

Hi, LT. I support the merges, since the topics (e.g coronal plane and sagittal plane and transverse plane) cannot be understood individually but inevitably always necessitate comparison together (hence duplication..), and besides, individually they aren't likely to ever become much more than stubs anyway. Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't mind the fork, but the planes are too closely logically associated for efficient separation. We can have redirs to this article from all the other all the other planes' names which in any case are multiple for each plane (or class of plane). JonRichfield (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi, leke. i also agree ,the topics are interdependent of each other

oppose merge Duplication is not a problem. We can have three independent articles on each plane and also an overall article. This gives straightforward answers to each topic, with as much depth as is needed in each. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No consensus for a merge. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.