Neuroscience High‑importance

	This article 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anatomy: Neuroanatomy 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 neuroanatomy.

Untitled

I've begun some cleanup with a new introduction but more is definitely needed. I think the best way forward is to make this a general overview linking to more detailed articles on each of the motor cortex areas. Dryman 23:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'experimented with removing parts of epileptic's brains without them noticing'... I think this statement needs to be explained a little more fully! 163.1.143.122 01:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an anatomical diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

Richwil (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of where the motor cortex is located would be nice

I see that a "banner" has requested this. This would be a nice addition. (Sorry, but I'm not a brain scholar so I can't be of help to improve the page, not without a lot of "scholarship" ) -- In fact, I'm at this page to find out where the motor cortex is located in xyz). Bill Wvbailey (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it say there are 5 ares of the motor cortex but it only lists 4?

FireBrandon (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The somatotropic organization on the image is wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.63.101 (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary aspects

This part is a translation of the corresponding German wikipedia article. --Bandadas (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks

Just a reminder, that there only needs to be one wikilink referencing an article from this page, every mention of this thing/person/place doesn't need to be another link. One time is enough. -Iamozy (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motor cortex vs. Primary motor cortex?

It seems that this article begins by stating that the primary motor cortex is a subdivision of the motor cortex. But then throughout the article the discussion predominantly concerns primary motor cortex. I think this type of information should be moved to the primary motor cortex page. Also, the picture is misleading because it is also only the primary motor cortex that is pictured. SMA and premotor areas are not diagrammed.

Then that leaves the question: what is the purpose of this page?

Gccwang (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section on PMC coding moved to Primary motor cortex. Better image uploaded. --Iamozy (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motor Cortex Picture

I recently replaced the picture of the motor cortex on this article with one that I created for the page. My reasons for doing so are that the original picture depicts the motor cortex as being bigger than it is in real life and does not include the cerebellum as reference to figure out where the motor cortex is. When I posted the new picture, it was accepted but due to a problem in which my sister tried to make a prank, Guliolopez reverted the picture out of legitimate concern that my account might have intentions of vandalism. This was a misunderstanding and after making sure my sisters damages were fixed I went her to change the picture back to the improved one. Meters then jumped into the interaction and changed the photo back to the original (and current. Meters stated: "this picture is not an improvement. Take it to talk or leave it alone" I value both Meters opinion and advice so I decided to do just that. I contend that the photo is an improvement and want people using wikipedia to have access to it. I encourage anyone to look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCtheeditor (talk • contribs) 18:29, June 10, 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page posts.

I didn't jump into anything any more than anyone else who makes an edit does. You made an edit, it was undone, by user:Guliolopez and rather than follow WP:BRD you restored it without discussing it. It certainly appears to me to have been a good faith edit that should not have been reverted without an edit summary, but I didn't undo it because I thought it was vandalism or because you didn't follow BRD. I undid it because I looked at the edit, and, as I said in my edit summary, I didn't think the new image was an improvement. I simply restored the image. that user:Iamozy had added four years ago. I find that original image clearer and easier to view than your version. If other editors think your new image is an improvement that's fine. That's why we discuss contested edits, to reach a consensus as to what we should do. Meters (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience, Iamozy's image is File:Human_motor_cortex.jpg and SCtheeditor's new version is File:Motor Cortex Two.jpg Looking at the images this way rather than in the article I see that some of my dislike for the change is simply that the new image displays smaller in the article ([1] vs [2]) That can be fixed if others agree to use the new image. Meters (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, File:Motor Cortex Two.jpg looks suspiciously like someone has simply coloured in an existing drawing with a blue crayon. It does not look professional, and if that's what you did you cannot release this image to Wikipedia as "own work". Note that the image uploader user:SeanPatrickConnolly has been renamed to user:SCtheeditor. Meters (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meters I can assure you that that is not the case, I drew this image in black pen and then colored it in with a pastel. This is my original work, I will post a zoomed up version of it to the talk page so that you can see it. Thanks though, I take that as a compliment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCtheeditor (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Meters, here is a link to the photo that my drawing is based off of https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54e00637e4b0cb82a5a620f3/t/54ea8054e4b07c01c5c14155/1424654421957/[reply]

I think that you will find that the lines match each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCtheeditor (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meters here it is File:Close up proof of originality.jpg this close up photo shows you where the pen marks are as proof that it is drawn not printed. Additionally, while I would not claim that my image is anywhere near to perfect, one concern that I have with File:Human_motor_cortex.jpg is that it does appear to be a bit grainy. The original reason that I decided to put time and effort into improving it was because I (as a viewer who did not yet have a wikipedia account) felt it looked a bit unprofesional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCtheeditor (talk • contribs) 20:25, June 10, 2018 (UTC)

Again, please sign your talk page posts, and indent them too.

I have no idea what you are on about. The blowup does not prove anything about who drew the original image, but if you say you drew the original I have no reason not to believe you. The uneven coloured background you added does not look good. It looks like it was coloured by a gradeschooler.

The blowup is probably the most pointless upload to Wikipedia I have ever seen. Please request a deletion of that image as it will never be of any use to Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this is fake dont read it unless you want fake information go to an deferint website for real informatoin dont b tricked by the good writing ITS FAKE INFRMATION — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:FDC0:9E00:DCB:5F99:DC86:4D71 (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]