Talk:Synovial joint

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Contents box

Why doesn't this page have a Contents box? Just curious... Rhetth 15:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it only currently has two headers. The content box automatically kicks in upon addition of the third (I think). --Arcadian 19:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common features

I copied the 'common features' directly from the reference. Is that ok?Senaiboy (talk) 12:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Can someone please find an appropriate picture of a synovial joint thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.38.65 (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

I was always taught that the synovial membrane was just the cellular component of the articular capsule, not a separate component. I think it should be changed. The references made in this section to the diagram should exactly match the labels in the diagram or the diagram labels should be changed to match the references made in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.199.177 (talk) 08:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Negative health effects of cycling?

Can information be added to the article on the negative effects of regular cycling on the synovial joints? Does long-term regular cycling permanently wear out the cartilage, synovial tissue, synovial membrane or any other part of the knee joints? Cartilage does not heal from damage, so any damage is permanent. Wsmss (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but I would think that the cycling page would be a more appropriate spot for such info, if true. Mokele (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations?

This article is very well written, and the information is true (and verified by the citation links) but I noticed that the citations themselves are not prevalent throughout the piece; to phrase that differently, the citations aren't actually backing up the information at the moment, despite it being true. They need to be further distributed across the article, in my opinion, but I lack the knowledge to do so myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.230.61 (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stub?

I wouldn't call this article a stub, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.230.61 (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I propose merging multiaxial joint here. It is a type of synovial joint and does not seem notable on its own. For example, in [1], "diarthroses [synovial joints] are classified as uniaxial, biaxial, or multiaxial joints." Darcyisverycute (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Emanriz (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ball-and-socket joint might be a more specific target for the merge, and therefore better.~~ Klbrain (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is no support for the alternative target, and no objections to the merge as originally proposal, I've merged it as initially proposed.

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]