Talk:Thalamocortical radiations

Anatomy: Neuroanatomy 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 neuroanatomy.

The[edit]

The term loop is topologically inexact. A loop is an arc whose root (point of departure) is also the tip. The correct term here is circuit. The cortico-thalamo-cortical circuits are 2-circuits (with two arcs or segments or connections): the cortico-thalamic connection and the thalamo-cortical connection. They have not necessarily exactly the same points of departure (the root) and of ending (a tip)in which case they are no more close and no more a circuit. They may have a combinatory, when for instance the thalamo-cortical has branches for several cortical targets that do not send axons exactly in a reciprocal manner. There are two kinds of corticothalmic axons (see thalamus) [[-user: gerard.percheron ]]

loops vs radiations[edit]

More than half of this article is about loops, but what about radiations. More of this article should be about things like the internal capsule and sensory modulation by the thalamus on its way to the cortexDrchazz (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vanity wikilink[edit]

Jytdog, please explain what is a vanity wikilink and why it is not useful to have it in wikipedia. After that, please explain why the wikilink to Ward belongs to this category. I see only minor positive and no negative effect of my edit.WikiHannibal (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key thing is that wikilinks are meant to be used to help the reader understand the topic better -- to lead to significantly helpful information. There is no benefit to the reader to linking to a random author on one source. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Overlinking_and_underlinking. On top of that: a) it is incredibly random to provide a wikilink to one author on one of 25 sources used in this article; b) if we linked to all authors on all sources the references section would become monstrous - this is not a great direction to go; c) on Wikipedia we care about the quality of the publication, not the author so much; d) i could see maybe linking to the author if he or she were some giant in the field but in this case the investigator is not especially notable - the article that you linked to is a mere stub. All that adds up to this being a vanity wikilink to me - an instance of overlinking. What is your reasoning for doing it? Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, reverting a reversion is NOT the way to go. Bad form. See WP:BRD Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]