Talk:Peritoneum

Anatomy: Gross 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 gross anatomy.

Untitled

Neither of the 2 illustrations on the top-right shows a "peritoneum". Maybe someone can find an illustration that does.

Is the Uterus an Intraperitoneal organ ? --Hinook67 (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article so human-centric?

Why is only the human peritoneum discussed in this article? I want to know about the peritoneums of other animals. I want to know if all animals have it or if some do not. Also where are we going to put the thousands of additional pages about the anatomy of every other animal that has one?

This article should be discussing the topic in a general way, and the human-specific details can be moved to another article, such as Peritoneum (human).... DMahalko (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find the first sentence goes a long way to answering your question on which animals have peritoneum:

The peritoneum is the serous membrane that forms the lining of the abdominal cavity or the coelom — it covers most of the intra-abdominal (or coelomic) organs — in higher vertebrates and some invertebrates (annelids, for instance).

I'd say much of the content is anthropocentric simply because the veterinarians and zoologists haven't edited the article much. I would suggest that if you went and created a bunch of articles about the peritoneum of every animal that posesses one, and stripped this one done to a general discussion only, we'd end up with a bunch of stub or start class articles that people would pretty soon be suggesting a merge of. I think the better way to go would be to create subsections in this article for the various animals involved, then invite people who edit veterinary or zoological articles to contribute. Perhaps you could post such an invitation at WP:BIOLOGY or WP:Animals, for example. Cheers, Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 02:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amniotes???

The statement/implication that a peritoneum appears only in amniotes and invertebrates seems WAY off the wall to me. Not sure where that could have even come from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.204.112 (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duodenorenal ligament

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 153#Duodenorenal ligament is not merged. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion started on Wikproject medicine has noted that Duodenorenal ligament isn't independently notable and might be best merged here, something I support. Klbrain (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is proposing the merge? --Iztwoz (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - now that the page is no longer an orphan I agree with Tom's comments of it being a stand alone item. There may be enough scope at some time to propose a new page of peritoneal variations.--Iztwoz (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iztwoz - basically my last statement was that this is probably a historic structure that's notable enough to have an independent article; merging it into a very broad article like this is putting the content at risk of loss completely and, as we have no space constrains here, there's no space related reason why we can't just keep the original article.Tom (LT) (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom I think I'm unsure of your 'historic' meaning - historic to me means something that is no longer relevant. Was the ligament a figment, or does it sometimes exist as an anatomic variant?--Iztwoz (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary defintion says it is occasionally found...?--Iztwoz (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2021 (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.