Talk:Diencephalon
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Who is the artist of that first image (above right) and if that artist is unknown then how come the image is used here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.254.135 (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC) Reply
- From what I can find, the Illu diencephalon.jpg picture in the infobox is an image originating from a US government website, and it is in the public domain since it was produced by the federal government (see Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States). Pabnau (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Zona limitans intrathalamica and Prethalamus
[edit ]With regard to the new nomencature I renamed the ventral thalamus - prethalamus and the dorsal thalamus - thalamus. This fits with human anatomy and developmental biology.
Due to recent research work (Kiecker and Lumsden, 2004 and Scholpp et al., 2006), I added the zona limitans intrathalamica as signaling boundary between the prethalamus and the thalamus. Furthermore, I linked it to its detailed description.
I am not sure if the subthalamus is equivalent to the prethalamus. For us as developmental biologists it is pretty obvious that the diencephalon consists of hypothalamus, prethalamus, ZLI, thalamus, epithalamus and pretectum. All availabe developmental description of the forebrain name the boundary between pretectum and tectum the alar forebrain-midbrain boundary (Macdonald et al., 1995; Araki and Nakamura, 1999; Scholpp et al., 2003; Puelles and Rubenstein, 2003). Therefore I added the pretectum in the diencephalon description.
Any thoughts on that ?
Stef
- What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
- If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
- If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
One of the sections was marked as needing clean-up because it uses "non-scientific language and lacks citations." The citation part is definitely an important concern, and I’ll see if I can find a clearer source than Grey’s anatomy. However, in terms of style, colloquial, "non-scientific" language is actually preferred based on the Wikipedia’s style guide. The goal is to "write articles accessible to the greatest possible number of readers" (see WP:Jargon). Wikipedia is not intended to be written like a scientific journal (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal) Pabnau (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply