Talk:Cytoarchitectonics of the cerebral cortex

Anatomy: Neuroanatomy

	This redirect 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
	This redirect has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.

Neuroscience

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles

poor lead

The cytoarchitectonics of the cerebral cortex is the study of .. cytoarchitecture in the cerebral cortex .. Not very helpful, is it?

I propose merging this article into cytoarchitecture (presently a stub). Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually think a merge would be appropriate, since the material here is all specifically about the cortex, which has a very specialized cytoarchitecture. But I certainly agree that the article could do with a better lead. Note that in sub-level articles such as this, it is not considered necessary to repeat the title of the article in the lead if doing so would be awkward. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no other part of the brain about which cytoarchitecture is described on wikipedia, wouldn't it be simpler to just call this article "cytoarchitecture" (or "cytoarchitectonics")? The only practical change would be a short subsection noting whether anything is known about the other parts.

Currently, half of this article is on staining techniques (which already technically could perhaps be moved under the more general title than cortex) and the other half is history (and is equally appropriate under the general title). So I disagree about this material being too specific.

I'm not sure whether you would feel differently if the other article were already a redirect to here rather than a stub? Clearly, there is currently no cause for maintaining two distinct articles. And it seems to me that the more general banner should be the one under which most weight is placed.Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me refine what I said: the part about Nissl staining does belong more appropriately to a general cytoarchitectonics article than to this one (or to a different article altogether). For the rest, I still feel that it is better placed in a separate article, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to resist if you want to make the move. Looie496 (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Staticshakedown for performing the merge! Cesiumfrog (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :O) static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 08:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]