Talk:Bone tissue
Any thoughts of putting in a disambiguation page for bones (organ) versus bones (tissue)? WLU 23:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
_active.jpg)
 | The content of the Bone tissue page was merged into Bone on 3 December 2017, and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article, please see its history. |
 | The content of Cortical bone was merged into Bone tissue. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| The content of Cancellous bone was merged into Bone tissue. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| The content of Bone cell was merged into Bone tissue. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Any thoughts of putting in a disambiguation page for bones (organ) versus bones (tissue)? WLU 23:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
comment relocated from article pg
DOESNT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN TRABECULAR AND COMPACT BONE ~UserIP:213.48.73.94 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Figma (talk • contribs) 05:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
DIAGRAM IS UNHELPFUL AND NOT PROPERLY LABELED FOR GENERAL READERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.62.245 (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Merge?
Thoughts on merging compact and spongy bone into this article? All three are short, there's a fair bit of duplication, a couple of headings could easily be thrown in to assist with wikilinks in other articles. Seems like it would make sense. WLU 14:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Requested move 25 November 2014
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Osseous tissue → Bone tissue – "Bone tissue" is the common name, and much more readily understandable by readers. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
- Support – "Bone tissue" is used much more widely in contemporary publications than "osseous tissue", as shown here and further confirmed by Google Scholar searches: [1], [2].
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME if not WP:UE Red Slash 23:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Proposed merge with Bone cell
Bone tissue is formed from bone cells. No need to have separate articles when they have such a similar scope. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support – with reservations. There is such a thing as acellular bone, currently not mentioned in either of these articles. Acellular bone was important in the evolution of bone, and remains important in many extant teleost fish. I support merging the articles and adding further content which address these issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support Both are relatively small pages that cover many overlapping topics Funkyman99 (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Done
Proposed merge with Cancellous bone
These two types of bone are related and should be displayed together. This will help readers and future editors by centralising information, and decrease needless confusion and fragmentation. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Done
Proposed merge with Cortical bone
As above Tom (LT) (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support all the above - but - is there any reason why the three articles cannot be merged with Bone. As it is there is duplication on all pages and the Bone page has plenty of room. It would make a much more comprehensive page.--Iztwoz (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- I worry that we will be rolling some important topics into the main article here and think it would be better that we have a general overview for most readers at Bone, and a more technical coverage of these types of bone in greater detail here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Done
- I worry that we will be rolling some important topics into the main article here and think it would be better that we have a general overview for most readers at Bone, and a more technical coverage of these types of bone in greater detail here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support all the above - but - is there any reason why the three articles cannot be merged with Bone. As it is there is duplication on all pages and the Bone page has plenty of room. It would make a much more comprehensive page.--Iztwoz (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Proposed merge
- 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 this discussion was to merge. Chhandama (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Much of page is duplicated on target page. Difficult to know what to include on this page or leave on target page particularly Clinical significance items. Individual bone cells would still have their own pages. A merge would not create a very large article. Iztwoz (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- It does look like it might not need to be an article on its own. I support a merge. However, it may be difficult to incorporate the text in a coherent way.Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 07:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Most of the headings at bone tissue are reproduced to a marginally lesser extent at bone. PriceDL (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.