Talk:Cerebellum

Declive
As declive redirects here it should be incorporated into the article. A source is http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/declive CFCF (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe in anatomy of the cerebellum? This article already has more anatomical terminology than it really ought to. Looie496 (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Animated gif in title box
I see the other changes as improvements, but I don't like that animated gif,or really any animated element in a title box. It's hard to read text when there is something moving beside it: the moving thing is a constant distraction. If there was any way for a reader to freeze the animation it would be a different story, but as far as I know the interface doesn't support that. Looie496 (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't find a way to freeze it either. Ideally, there should be a way to play it like a movie: i.e. only have it moving if you click or roll-over it. We could replace it with one of these two files? DrKiernan (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of revert of material on MD Forrest papers
I have reverted some new material, previous reverted by DrKiernan and then re-added with minor changes. The reason for reverting is that the new material is not consistent with WP:MEDRS, Wikipedia's policy for sourcing of medical articles, which states that we should rely whenever possible on secondary sources (generally review articles) rather than primary research papers. This is not just pedantry: I believe that adding this material to such a high-level article gives it undue weight. Coverage of the material in reviews would be evidence to the contrary. Looie496 (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Development
Does the page need a section on development? --Iztwoz (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wrote most of this article, but that's a topic I know basically nothing about. What would such a section say? Looie496 (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to give ref to its forming from rhombomeres and to the rhombic lip which gives rise to the granule cells. There seems to be some info that could be used from . Cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just noted that this is covered in Anatomy of the cerebellum.--Iztwoz (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Human vs. Nonhuman
As the article states, the cerebellum is in all vertebrates. It isn't made clear which anatomical features in this article apply specifically to man or to primates and which apply to all vertebrates. For example, do reptiles have a posterior cranial fossa? 64.40.43.32 (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that is a level of detail beyond what this article can be expected to reach. Looie496 (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but this article begins with the tacit assumption that the reader has come here really and primarily to learn about the human brain part rather than the cerebellum generally as a feature of the vertebrate brain system. This is a flaw of countless medical articles on Wikipedia  See, for example, the discussion here.  KDS4444 (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Fetal cerebellum
The visualization of the fetal cerebellum is part of routine ultrasound scans at 18 to 20 weeks of pregnancy for screening of fetal neural tube defects with a sensitivity rate of up to 99%.

For references see: Campbell, I. MB, ChB; Gilbert, W. M. MD; Nicolaides et al.Ultrasound Screening for Spina Bifida: Cranial and Cerebellar Signs in a High-Risk Population. Obstetrics & Gynecology, Volume 70 - Issue 2 August 1987. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroder (talk • contribs) 11:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Issues found on peer review
This article is a candidate for publication in Wikiversity Journal of Medicine (Wikiversity draft located here). When published, the snapshot in Wikiversity will be easier for external sources to cite, and it will give clear credit to those who have contributed the most to creating the article. However, first it needs some amendment in regard to the issues found in by the peer reviewer, copied to here:

The last issue refers to the segment "...usually innervate Purkinje cells belonging to the same microzone"

Also, User:Tony1 asked what "its" refers to for the sentence "This complex neural organization gives rise to a massive signal-processing capability, but almost all of its output passes through a set of small deep cerebellar nuclei lying in the interior of the cerebellum."

As this is among Wikipedia's featured articles, I think it is important to address these matters. Also, please give me a note if you think you think you've made substantial contributions to this article to have your name among the authors in the Wikiversity article. In that case, your real name should be used rather than your username.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * After looking into what has happened since the review and striking over those issues that appears to be amended, the only remaining task I find from the peer review is to add some references to the last paragraph in the introduction. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Article should be renamed Human Cerebellum
All mammals have a Cerebellum so one might expect going into this article for there to be descriptions of a generalized mammalian cerebellum. However this article only talks about the Human Cerebellum. If that is the scope this article is to take then might I propose we rename it to Human Cerebellum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanikk999 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is fairly large coverage on other animals in Comparative anatomy and evolution section.--Iztwoz (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Though wouldn't it be nice (and appropriate) for an encyclopedic treatment of the cerebellum to properly situate the human cerebellum as just one example of the cerebella of all vertebrate animals rather than as the virtually only kind that a reader could be coming here to read about? Coverage is one thing; due weight is another, and this article gives much undue weight to the discussion of the human organ rather than to the discussion of the organ itself.  See my comment above regarding this, and the link I provide there.  KDS4444 (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have some difficulty understanding these comments. Most of this article is my work, and I was trying hard to write in a way that would not be human-specific, with the exception of the "clinical significance" section.  (The "blood supply" section is also human-specific, but I did not write it.)  In other places the human features are described largely to give specific information regarding principles that apply across the range of species, or where important data comes specifically from humans.  (For example, insights into function from fMRI imaging or from clinical studies.)  All that being said, of course I am not the owner of the article and anybody who thinks it can be improved is welcome to work on it. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary disambiguation does not actually serve a purpose but I did see Brain and Human brain. I would defer to consensus on any name change.

Concerns
@ Looie496, I read the article and if a majority of it is attributed to you then you deserve accolades. I suppose my only concerns (if you will) would be the long "External links" list (sometimes things just creep in) and the two images in the center of the page. The flow of the article looks great then there are these two center images with spaces above and below. Otr500 (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

New edit concerns
Have just removed latest edit - paper used has good info but the edit was cut and pasted (in two parts) into the Aging section. The info is more related to damage than aging - have left the ref here for future usage of material.--Iztwoz (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Cerebellum and autism spectrum disorder
Is there a reason that the link between abnormalities in the cerebellum and ASD is not mentioned in this article? Considering the amount of literature describing this connection, I reckon it is appropriate to include it.Laboz125 (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

P cell firing
What is the source for "Purkinje cells normally emit action potentials at a high rate even in the absence of the synaptic input"? It seems unlikely, furthermore how would one deprive the cell of synaptic input? I thought the standard view was that ongoing PF activity causes the high rate.Paulhummerman (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)