Talk:Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain

Delete?

This page doesn't really say very much. It gives a poor description of MRI (better served at MRI), and briefly distinguishes between fMRI and the whole of the rest of the field. I was going to suggest merging into the main MRI page, but I can't actually see anything here I would keep. Does anyone object to simply deleting it? GyroMagician (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I object. If you want it gone, please review the process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Arcadian (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Your objection is fair enough - but why? I thought I'd informally ask the question before formally starting an AfD process. I often find the discussion more useful - maybe, for example, a better solution is to move something from the main MRI article to here. Currently though, I don't see any reason to keep this page, but I'm more than happy to be persuaded otherwise. GyroMagician (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that this article talks more about MRI in general rather than MRI of the brain specifically. It certainly could be expanded into a substantial article but it just lacks the content at the moment. It was split from another article fairly recently, so I would ask the author whether they are planning to expand it before nominating it for deletion. If there are no plans to expand it, I'd say merging it back to where it came from or to another article would be a better course of action than deleting it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I started from the same point of view, that merging would be better than deleting. But what would you keep from this page? If we are to keep it, the 'MRI overview' section needs work - it currently doesn't make much sense. I could imaging having sections on the main MRI page discussing details of imaging particular anatomy - brain, heart, joints, etc. GyroMagician (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you recommend that we merge nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy of nucleic acids into MRI? --Arcadian (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

GyroMagician: If this were to be merged, there is a paragraph worth of material here to merge; it's not much but it's better not to throw it out completely. My inclination is that AfD is really for things like hoaxes and blatant POV pushing, which are things that really do need to be deleted. Topics of low notability can be dealt with by merging, but I do think that this is a notable enough topic that could be expanded into a suitable article, the concern is just about the amount of material that is there now. It is definitely a stub, but there is nothing wrong with stubs.

Arcadian: Of course not, but that is a non sequitur. I see you've been working on this article over the past month. I'd suggest placing {{Under construction}} on the page if you are planning to expand it above stub-class in the near future, to let other editors know you're working on expanding it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Antony-22 - I agree that AfD is something of a blunt weapon, and often unhelpful - hence my starting the discussion here. And yes, I prefer not to simply delete an article when it can be merged in elsewhere, or develop from a stub into something more.

Arcadian - I'm sorry if I have come across as hostile towards you - that is not my intention. What I am trying to prevent is a further fracturing of MR articles across WP, where each article badly reproduces the same knowledge. MRI covers a vast range of knowledge, and none of us are experts in all of it. For example, my expertise is in the hardware and physics, while I struggle to identify the front of a brain from the back. Over at the main MRI page there are a large number of editors with a variety of expertise - clearly most of those editors are not monitoring this page, which is why I flagged this page on the talk over there.

Now, that said, the main MRI page is a bit of a monster, and could sensibly be cut into smaller sections. What plans do you have for this page? As Antony-22 points out, maybe you have a plan here that you simply haven't had a chance to write out yet? If there is a future for this page, I'm willing to help straighten out the current 'Principles' section. Again, what I want to avoid is this page becoming a poor reproduction of the main MRI page, although clearly a brief introduction is required here.

For a start, I would recommend changing the main image - MRI is pixel or voxel based in its acquisition, so using a vectorized image doesn't make much sense (this isn't CSI, we have no infinite zoom!). If you want something in particular and can't source it yourself, I could get hold of something (although it would be 7T so not really typical). GyroMagician (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Title: MRI of the brain or nervous system?

I think the title should include not only the brain but all the nervous system because MRI of the spinal cord and peripheral nervous system is now well developed and used in clinical settings

Perhaps the title "MRI of the central nervous system"? Would include both MRI of the brain and spinal cord. Eljungberg (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Move of article

Iztwoz, why did you move this article from "Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain"? I understand that "MRI" is a common term, but many people still don't know what it is and we don't title the Magnetic resonance imaging article "MRI." Also, why include "brainstem" in the title?

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I moved it because the previous version read Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the nervous system... The infobox read MRI of the brain and brainstem. Firstly the first sentence of the lead usually contains the page name bolded, without a break and without links. Secondly the linked nervous system was inaccurate - the central nervous system is being referred to, and thirdly the new name was that used in the infobox which needs to be the same as the page name. The use of MRI is acceptable to me as it's the common name used - I don't think that most readers could spell out the whole term but are familiar with MRI but if you want to use the full name go ahead. I would point out that the page CT scan uses the usual name. --Iztwoz (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Also an MRI of the brain usually if not always includes the brainstem (as far as I know).--Iztwoz (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Iztwoz, I still don't understand why the article was moved from "Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain" to "MRI of brain and brainstem." Both titles have "MRI" in them (with one spelled out, of course) and both have "brain" in them (with one additionally including "brainstem"). I don't see that the infobox having needed tweaking, for example, was a reason to move the article. Also, since the brainstem is a part of the brain, I don't see a need for "brainstem" to be part of the title. Yes, I think that the article should be moved back to its previous title. I'll go ahead and do that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)