Talk:forearm bones

Deletion debate
And we also had forearm bones, just added by 史凡, speedily deleted by SB as SoP. 史凡 raised, in the TR, whether it ought have been deleted, so I'm bringing that issue here, too. Delete, I say. &#x200b;— msh210  ℠  18:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)  21:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I shoulda said what its content was. It was just the template (and appropriate headers and inflection line).  &#x200b;—  msh210  ℠  18:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

mye,itgoes w/the sg forearm bone entry[savd onlyafterwards,asstruglin'w/etyl fmt :).ihadmy ownconcerns: butfrom educationalpoint[=uln+rad,saykids mitewonder"wotr f-a bones actualy]+/prafrasd:morethanjustsop[wotisa fa bone->TWOthings,NOTdeducible fromjustheadparts ofentry(tho most asults kno as=comn kno-ldg]>ithought/deemd itworthwhile[tho tad encyclopedic praps]+incl.realife ex.--ta4movin btw:)
 * 1) bones of f-a.
 * sop
 * ps i1.thought ofputin info i/plentry,but changdmymind i/daproces,c vasa deferentia[nkept/savdboth]:)--史凡 >voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 19:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Apart from the education point, in some animals there seems to be


 * 1) a single forearm bone, usually called the ulna and sometimes the forearm bone;
 * 2) a partial fusion of the ulna and radius forming a unit sometimes called the forearm bonel
 * 3) two separate bones of which the ulna seems to be sometimes called the forearm bone.
 * And, of course, the forearm of many animals is more readily understood as a forelimb, whether foreleg or wing or flipper.
 * Also, there are many uses on fiction that refer to "the" forearm bone as if it were a single unit, even in a human. If we gave an anatomy quiz to admins here, would they all know that our upper limbs had one bone and our lower ones two, without recourse to cheating by palpation? I don't think it is just the children who may have a fuzzy understanding, it may be authors and readers and even us. We can dismiss all of this as error, of course, but that does seem just a mite prescriptive.
 * I am not sure that I understand this correctly, but it seems rash to delete it. DCDuring TALK 20:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

nope-asperbelo:rad+uln notdeduciblfromparts[same4legbons:[meta]tarsus incl?,toe bons?2me=al legs,but2anativ layman??-furthermor, my languagedozntv theword legbons,howdoikno???.--史凡 >voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC) We also ha
 * Keep both. DCDuring TALK 21:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * as anonativ:howdoiknowhichr incl.i/legbone??
 * iAMtraind>we'dalv'em![astheyrdiscreetentitys>sucinct def+ref2wp,aswe'dw/alproper names[nothati cap'em,bone nams;)--史凡 >voice-MSN/skype''me!RSI>typin=hard! 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If fibula is actually also called calf bone (which it is according to dictionary.com) it should be kept. How else would we poor non-natives know which of the two bones of the lower leg it is? --Hekaheka 19:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

agree--史凡 >voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC) eh-singly=?here
 * imyview:atleasthavastub,saysphenoid bonelinkin2sphenoid
 * soneedsexpansionlol--史凡 >voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as sum of parts. Yes, the specific bones will be variable between species, and so will "wrist bones", "skull bones", "leg bones", etc.  Consider that "wrist bone" can mean any of the bones in the wrist. Each of these bones has a name and a distinctive shape.  Do we therefore have an entry that lists each possible wrist bone for every species (in some there are more bones)?  No.  This is content for an encyclopedia.  The lexical content of the term "forearm bone" is "bone in the forearm". --EncycloPetey 03:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

i'dgo4wt tobe abroaddict>a.bit of grammar[ala Swan,whichsome entrys ractualy~dict.styl],gazeteer/geo,bitencycl.,phrasebooki/SHORTish entrysREFERING2wp,wm-books,etc>userFRIENDLY,klik-efficient[here:guidance2find wotevastuf:)[thoputinboundaryshard,irealiz
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leg_bone k,nofoot lolvoice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 04:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and they deal with topics in their articles. We are a dictionary, and deal with words in our entries.  The principles of organizing an encyclopedia do not apply here because our goals are quite different. --EncycloPetey 14:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

there isOVERLAP--likalthose discusions here'bout saytheDEF OFA WORD[lexicografik1]-itookmejust2weeks dealin intesivly w/apliedlinguistics waybak i/oz2c thatMOSTofthose holy/bigwordHOTOPICS/TECHN.TERMSrpoorly defind>wotsthepoint inalthefiting??encycl do alilbitof linguistiks[ipa,etyl],weneed2HELP'EMw/that[styloid-ipa?spica-etyl?let alone spica splint--have funsearchin i/wp..]>INCLUDING WP entrys [w/justLILdef-flesh,that indeed4wp],doinOURJOB w/etyl,ipa etc andsoHELPourusers.[imtrulyfedupw/althese mostlynarowsens def getinpalmdofasTHEdef[ex.:WOT IS A DICTIONARY,answerREALYNOTASTRAIGHT4WARDasu regulars'dlik2makebeliv,ncomin downw/big[policy usay?perdef>{punintended ;)}ALWAYS IN FLUX]stiks isntv.RESPECTFULeither],aweaknes esp.ofalthoseSOFTsciences as sociology,psychology etc imo[lookatsuch wp-entrys,howlers!!],nlet alonethe impresion itmaks uponanewby] Kept for no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * nmostofthose"dict.constraints"had2do w/SPACElimits["so we'lmakesomARBITRARYCRITERIAup"]-why esp.here onaproject ofsuchunprecedenteddimensionppl rso"closed"2wotburgeonin'technologys cando4them-itleavesmebafled,butrealy..:(
 * nthisimhoPERVERS/DESTRUCTIVfocus on"shalwe deletethisentry,yea?!{hyper-tone intended.}"[mywatchp.isnowINUNDATEDbythem--isCREATINstuf realysoborin??]-rwe here2BUILDUPor2smashea others efortsunderthepretensofGARDIN'THEGRAIL--itsaWORKINPROGRES,4krist'sake..--史凡 >voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 15:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)