Talk:Nervous system

"rapidly" is a POV term. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Arrant nonsense. Salsa Shark 07:59, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Speed and time are relative, depending upon the observer. It is your opinion whether something is fast or slow. Lirath Q. Pynnor

If the choices are common scientific terminology or that crock, then let it be common scientific terminology. Salsa Shark 08:03, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you want to note that some refer to this as the "rapid signalling" system; that, of course, I have no objection to. But you cannot define it as "rapid" without noting what it is rapid in comparison to. Lirath Q. Pynnor

'Rapid signalling' is the accepted scientific term, and the article is written in the context of scientific discourse. Calling it POV, or weaseling 'some refer to', is no different from the hobbyhorse topics of the various persistent vandals that have come through here who don't know how to game the system so well. Salsa Shark 08:31, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Doing a quick Google search indicates that rapid signaling or rapid signalling is indeed an accepted term in the field. As a secondary source, Wikipedia shouldn't be trying hard to redefine entire industries or vocabularies. I would propose to italicize it, as a compromise? Fuzheado 08:33, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I did. Apparently that still doesn't please...

The article on information is quite clear that it is inappropriate to refer to neural "information" as anything but "information". Lirath Q. Pynnor

People editing this article should be aware that Lirath does this at every article he visits, whether he knows anything about the subject or not. His edits should be reverted and he should be ignored until he gets bored and goes away. Adam 09:07, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have asked you before to refrain from personal attacks. Lirath Q. Pynnor

At the Village Pump I have nominated Lir for banning. Lir, you might like to rise to your defense. Assistant prosecutors would also be welcome. 168... 19:03, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The topic has been moved to Wikipedia:Problem_users#User:Lir (again). Peak 05:58, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zootomy

I don't see how zootomy is especially "narrow" of a field. In any case, I felt neuroscience deserved mention as well. Since it is apparent that we will continue to conflict on various biology issues; I urge you to refrain from merely reverting and deleting my edits -- try to understand why I might want to make such an edit, and think of some way you could modify the edit so that it is more palatable to you. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Actually, I didn't "revert" your page, I merely deleted two (what I felt were) superfluous words. I left all of the rest of your edits perfectly intact. Please check the history. "Zootomy" is not a common term and if lay readers of Wikipedia come across that, they might genuinely wonder, why am I reading about the nervous system in zootomy? If you must include it, put it in a See also at the bottom of the page, and keep neuroscience in the "In ..." prefix section. Think about writing the article in Wikipedia:News style, keep the intro short, tight and to the point, and you can get detailed and technical later. This dittos for the changes to the DNA article.

I did actually try see what you were doing, but I don't think that every biology article, needs to have "In such-and-such discipline" before defining the term, especially when there's only one common context that it is normally used. It certainly has a place in disambiguation pages, or where there are multiple senses of a word, such as law (scientific law, vs "legal" law). I see that it useful to have the link for doing clever things with "What links" here and "Related articles", but there might be a better way of doing this than the "In ..." prefix at the beginning of the article. There is a new category system that is due to come online soon, hopefully that will help this problem. --Lexor 11:55, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I highly doubt anyone will wonder "is the zootomical nervous system different from what I want"; in any case, the addition of neuroscience will certainly clarify that. Technical articles should have prominent starting links back to their root academic discipline; to facilitate easier browsing. Lirath Q. Pynnor

My point is that zootomy is not a commonly known name of a discipline, I rarely hear it used at all these days (it gets a grand total of 779 hits on Google: perhaps you mean zoology, which is more well-known, gets about 1,260,000 Google hits?), but neuroscience is. I understood the usefulness of noting/linking the academic discipline (see my comments above), but including it at the beginning of the article in every article, isn't the best way (yes, in some cases I agree it is esp. to disambiguate it). The category system is designed for that. Meanwhile let's try and come up with a better way faciliate the goal you wish to achieve but preserve readability. I suggest linking from and including at the end of the article List of biology topics, I try and keep this list up-to-date, and the precise purpose of this page is to maintain such links. --Lexor 12:17, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This should be merged with central nervous system article. I made a few corrections and clarifications to this one. icut4u 18:36, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, the nervous system incorporates the central nervous system AND the periphreal nervous system. In "lower" animals, there's pretty much just "the nervous system". Sayeth 23:03, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Quite right, and hence no need for two...I would suggest one article to cover it all and a redirect function, thereby allowing those who go to either to get the information. A lot of redundancy, I think, but perhaps that's what people prefer, and, in any case, I do not want to tackle it myself. icut4u 23:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question moved from "Anatomy" section of article

what about chemical signaling?