Talk:Cranial nerves

central and peripheral course

Cranial nerves do not have a central and peripheral course. Once in the brain, they are no longer cranial nerves. The nerves have intracranial and extrancranial courses. I am changing the text accordingly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talk • contribs) 13:34, 14 April 2015‎ (UTC)

raising shoulder and head turning (accessory nerve)

Damage to the accessory nerve causes ipsilateral, not contralateral, weakness to the trapezius. Similarly, damage to the ipsilateral nerve, if high, will definitely cause paralysis of the sternocleidomastoid as well. What is currently written is incorrect.

Why is "Function" discussed largely as pathology?

In the sections under 2 Function, the function of each nerve is discussed largely in terms of known pathologies. Is this how anatomical function is normally or primarily described? Is the emphasis on pathology a feature of medical literature as opposed to literature for a general audience?

I suspect that the knowledge of cranial nerve function might proceed largely from the knowledge of adverse physical conditions observed consistently in conjunction with specific cranial nerve damage. (In other words, as regards "function," it may be more truthful to say, "we know what functions are impaired when this particular nerve is damaged," rather than describe the same nerve as positively "having" such functions.) Even so, as a general reader, I myself did expect to find information about normative "function" as such and was surprised to find mostly information characterizing "malfunction."

Please keep in mind that I am not a medical expert, and please do pardon my ignorance if the reason for the focus on pathology is obvious or generally understood. --Zmvictor (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmvictor (talk • contribs) 02:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zmvictor you make an excellent point and I very much agree this distinction between normal and abnormal is important. For this reason in most articles "Clinical significance" and "Function" are split quite clearly. In this article we use a slightly different structure. The main reason for that was otherwise we have two lists of the tweleve nerves - one in function and one in clinical significance, which ended up being messy. We decided it might be more useful to have the effect of damage to each of the twelve nerves next to its function, and an overall coverage of sources of damage in the 'clincial significance' section. I see that the text has deteriorated a little bit so this distinction has been lost over time. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Ergh. I think this article will need more work than I thought. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zmvictor  Done I have made quite a lot of edits to the article. It's not perfect but I hope this is an improvement. Let me know what you think.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tom (LT) Just a note to say I reread the article and very much appreciated your emendations as well as the expanded text and additional figures. I found the subsections under Function clear and easy to follow. As a reader, I quickly caught on to the pattern (description of normative function followed by description of abnormal function due to damage), which helped me organize the information mentally as I was reading.-- Zmvictor (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate your positive reply :). Let me know (probably via my talk page is easiest) if you find any other articles that are particularly hard to understand, happy to have a look and try and improve them too. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 23 April 2024

Cranial nerves → Cranial nerve – WP:SINGULAR, not a plurale tantum, a single cranial nerve isn't referred to in plural, in line with spinal nerve where the nerves are more commonly referred to in plural. Background is a declined past move request per Template:Db-move. –Tobias (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing this, I'm always appreciative of efforts to improve articles in our anatomical space. You can see I've been involved in editing this article previously. I would not be in favour of moving the article per Wikipedia:PLURAL, "Articles on groups of distinct entities that are nevertheless often considered together". Unlike spinal nerves, which are often simply reported by their number and are conceptually fairly similar, the cranial nerves are very commonly considered as a group. That's why there is a difference between the two article titles. Tom (LT) (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It's great to hear from you. I think I understand your perspective on the titles being oriented towards the detailed characteristics of the described topic. However, I'm questioning whether the structure of subdivisions within the topic, such as the individual cranial nerves, should influence the title. Also, doesn't the conceptual similarity of spinal nerves make them more considerable as a group compared to even the cranial nerves? I'm also concerned about consistancy and conciseness. For example, the cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae are commonly referred to as a group and it is consistent that all of their articles bear a plural title. Applying this principle on the cranial nerves and spinal nerves, I see an inconsistancy which seems less concise too, imho. I'm just wondering if there might be a more concise approach. Maybe you have some ideas to address this? –Tobias (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - it seems quite clear as above that WP:PLURAL and WP:Article titles#Exceptions cover this use of a plural form. As for Spinal nerve I would likewise support a move to Spinal nerves.--Iztwoz (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's clear. But the simple permission doesn't necessarily make it useful and the use of plural form is what I can't get my head around right now. –Tobias (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)