Talk:Articular bone

I know that the wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, but "articular" is both a noun describing a specific bone in some animals and an adjective ([1] & [2]). The wikipedia correctly has the entry for the noun and correctly doesn't define the adjective. That being said, it is confusing to find no reference to the adjective on the wiki page for articular. IMO, no need for a definition, just a reference that "articular" has alternate meanings. I'm sure there is a standard way of doing this in the wikipedia but I'm not familiar with it.

Furthermore, should the wikipedia entry for the noun be "articular" or "articular bone"? I'm far from an anatomy expert on tetrapods but a quick Google search shows that "articular" AND "articular bone" produces about 7.2K hits while "articular" AND -"articular bone" returns about 3.4M. This differs from other bones such as the "humerus" which has about 12.5K hits for "humerus bone" and just shy of 800K hits for "humerus".

Now after having written this up I seem to be more clueful as to what should be done. The current wikipedia entry for "articular" should be moved to "articular bone" and "articular" should be a disambiguation page. The wiktionary entry for "articular" has many "derived terms" that could and probably should be added to the wikipedia as well.

Neil Smithline (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The word articular should redirect to joint and not to articular bone

I will speak with a few words because things are simple. I am expert in medicine so the work articular as a medical term just means related to a joint, literally. So I strongly suggest to retain the meaning I have added. I know that wiki is not a dictionary. If you insist, you may just make a link with the word joint. But as I can see you are a user. So I guess that an administrator should decide.

All the articles on PubMedI have read are using the word articular with the meaning I gave, i.e. referred to a joint.See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=articular I can't insist further because the matter is simple and this is a medical term and not biology or anthropology or zoology term. I can't understand why with the word articular (that means referred to a joint) you need to make a link with the word articular bone. Why you add the word bone to the term? Articular bone is, in all Gnathostomata except Mammalia, the bone of the lower jaw that articulates with the upper jaw. In Mammalia the articular has become the malleus of the middle ear.

In conclusion, the word articular is referred to a joint and not to the articular bone. On my medical dictionary I found terms that also relate the word articular with the joint, such as articulate, or articulation (joint). With your way we should also relate the word articular also with the term articularis genu, a muscle! But even with the meaning you give, there is not any term articular in human anatomy. 688dim (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"Arrticular" can either be a noun, referring to a bone, or an adjective, referring to joints. However, there is a policy, Wikipedia:DICTIONARY, which basically means that adjectives don't get their own pages. And, since the same term has both a noun and an adjective meaning, I would interpret that as the noun taking priority. At best, there can be a small disambiguation note at the top of the articular bone page. Also, sheer number of hits means little - if we went by that, "python" would link straight to the programming language (and people have tried to make the change for that reason). HCA (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I am tired of arguing (and watching my change being removed twice by 2 users). I did not speak about hits. I find not scientific that the hits of a word on google make something scientifically reliable. I just spoke scientifically, as I am an expert in medicine and I do not find any reason of not redirecting articular to joint.

I insist that articular as a word is referred to a joint and not a bone. You may just open a medical dictionary. I mentioned PubMed and the use of the word articular to just show you that in all scientific medical studies they use this word with the meaning that I mention. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=articular

In conclusion, I insist that articular should redirect to joint. Can an administrator help here? 688dim (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered that not everything is about humans? WP anatomy articles are already terribly biased towards the most over-studied, uninteresting species around, and your dogmatic assertion that human definitions should take precedence, in spite of WP policy and with no given reason beyond overt anthropocentrism, only serves to aggravate the problem. HCA (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I am tired of arguing for something so obvious and when trying making the proper redirection of articular to joint to watch you removing it, as if you are an administrator. Why doesn't wiki makes an open debate for this matter, but accepts your personal opinion as accurate? I am an expert on medicine. Are you a scientist or not? Don't you read medical articles on PubMed where million of times the word articular relates to joints?688dim (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I already quoted you a WP policy on why the noun is preferable, yet you persist. I'm fully aware of the adjective use of the term, as well as its commonality (see above), neither of which are good arguments for your edit. We can, however, make it into a disambiguation page, with links to both the bone and the adjective use. HCA (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You did not answer my question if you are a scientist or not, and also I did not have your comment on the fact that on PubMed (the most famous American medical database) the word articular in all the medical articles relates to joint. It is unacceptable for wiki to accept your opinion a priory as accurate and redirect articular to articular bone instead of joint that would be the proper redirection. This makes wiki less reliable. 688dim (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Can an administrator help here?

I made the change, but someone did not respect my efforts (I guess it is user HCA) and removed it once again! That person does not understand that the word articular should not redirect to articular bone (but to joint), despite the reference I provided. Its time consuming in wiki to prove something obvious.I am done. An administrator should help here.688dim (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Articular bone. 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/20070429203723/http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/Unit420/420.000.html to http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/Unit420/420.000.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)