Talk:Ethmoid bone

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.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SSergeant.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comments on notice:

This article is based on an entry from the 1918 edition of Gray's Anatomy, which is in the public domain. As such, some of the information contained herein may be outdated. Please edit the article if this is the case, and feel free to remove this notice when it is no longer relevant.

I'd like to suggest some changes in wording:

Is the article "based on" or "copied from" Gray's Anatomy? If it's "based on" then Gray's Anatomy should be cited as a source, and that source notation should NEVER be removed: it will be relevant unless the article is completely rewritten without reference to the previous article or to Gray's. This is an issue of citing sources (i.e. plagiarism) rather than of legality (i.e. copyright). If it is "copied from" then we should say so, and those particular words can change if substantial article changes are made, but Gray's still should be cited as a source...forever.
So I'd also think that "feel free to remove this notice when it is no longer relevant" needs to go, except in reference to "copied from"
And (parenthetically), anatomy is not such a vibrant field that 100 year old information is particularly outdated. 100 year old language might be, but I'm not sure why we want to suggest that there have been exciting new advances in anatomic information that we've missed.... :) -- Someone else 05:39, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Proposed move

I wonder whether it might be more useful to merge it with 'paranasal sinuses' rather than ethmoid bone, since it seems to fit better under that category than the bone. (unsigned comment 06:22, 26 October 2005 203.48.242.193)
Oppose'. These are two related but distinct anatomical structures. --Arcadian 13:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sinuses and bones are different structures and belong in different articles. - Nunh-huh 16:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with the sentiments stated above. These structures are distinct separate structures.--Jfurr1981 19:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetite?

This article refers to magnetite deposits in the ethmoid bone, and cites El Reg as a source. El Reg is an IT webzine, not a medical journal: there must be a better, more authoritative cite for this. -- The Anome 10:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be the appropriate reference? Or another paper by the same people? -- The Anome 10:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Location of picture

I hope the sagittal picture won't create misunderstandings, because it is located in the "injuries"-section. I mean, somebody might take it as:

"A severe injury to the ethmoid bone is a sagittal section of the skull. The patient looks like this after the injury. As you see, the whole brain has already fallen out of the big hole resulting from such an injury. There is currently no treatment for sagittal section of the skull, but the patient is mostly recommended painkillers." Mikael Häggström 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misquoted article

The scientific article Evidence of a nonlinear human magnetic sense has been misquoted. The terms nose, magnetite and ethmoid appear nowhere in the article. Therefore I've removed it from the list of references. With respect to the statement about magnetite in the human nose, I believe we should either find a proper reference or remove the statement altogether. Also see the discussion on Magnetoception. Dragice (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Ossification of ethmoid

I have proposed this merge, between the 'ossification' page and this article, because:

I feel it is needlessly fragmented to have two separate pages.
It is standard on Anatomy pages, and recommended in WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, for 'Development' sections to be displayed on the same page.
Additionally, this page is small and it would give more context to have the information displayed in a central location, rather than hidden on a separate article.
If necessary, this article could be expanded at a later date. LT910001 (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Really Understandable

From the term "cubical bone" on, there is very little to help the reader understand the structure.

Agreed: "The cubical bone is lightweight due to a spongy construction." makes no sense and isn't helpful given the context of the WP:LEAD. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]