Talk:Cephalic disorder

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The Craniostenoses section (and the sutures article) would benefit from a diagram of the plates. - Omegatron 00:39, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

why don't some of these articles have separate pages?

Some of these disorders are certainly deserving of separate pages, anencephaly, for example. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be the only article here that groups together a whole bunch of similar disorders without any of them having separate articles. Maybe this is the prefered way to do this, but I think it should follow the format of the rest of Wikipedia articles, with each major disorder having a separate article. This article doesn't have to be deleted; instead, create larger articles for more common disorders, and use this article to provide an overview. Just my opinion.

Well, the longer sections (e.g. anencephaly) could go into their own articles with a short summary in this article but I suspect nobody has gotten around to it yet. Why don't you go ahead and do it? Btw, please sign your comments in future. Thanks. Alex.tan 04:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've gone ahead and split anencephaly into its own article. --Arcadian 16:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found a stub for Lissencephaly, so I've split that one off as well. --Arcadian 16:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Splitting pages

Unless anyone objects, I'd like to split these all out into their own pages. Of course many of them will be tiny at first, but once split out they are more likely to grow and get better. --Arcadian 22:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that would be much better. --WS 22:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have split these articles. --Arcadian 15:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for splitting the pages

But please don't forget to include the references/ endtag when you do it to pages that have <refs> thanks jeremy 18:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I added Polycephaly as a "see also" link, since I don't know if it's recognized as an official cephalic disorder in ICD and such. Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 22:15Z

Merge with cephalic

While the deletion discussion of cephalic, which can be found here, ended up as a "keep", the majority of involved users realized the need to change its format. As was recommended by another user in that discussion, I suggest that the information be merged here and the title be made to redirect to head, primarily for the reasons already stated in the prior discussion:

  1. "Cephalic" is an adjective, and article titles should not be adjectives.
  2. Moving to "cephalon" would make the article redundant with the head article.
  3. The entirety of the cephalic article other than the dictionary-definition lede is a summary of the cephalic disorder article.
  4. Plenty of articles are called "Cephalic x" with x being something completely unrelated to cephalic disorders (ex. cephalic flexure, cephalic phase, cephalic index, cephalic vein).
  5. "Cephalic" means "relating to the head", therefore the head article is the most appropriate location for a redirect destination for cephalic.

In conclusion, the information on cephalic should be merged here, and then cephalic should redirect to head. Neelix (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation/etymology of the conditions

Hi, I came to this page looking for specific malformation (extra nostrils), but I couldn't figure out which condition was most likely to be what I wanted as my medical Greek/Latin is a little basic. What do people thing about adding a translation/short description in brackets after each term? Keepstherainoff (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cephalic disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]