Talk:Infraorbital canal

Suggestion on helping understanding of article
An image or figure would be exceptionally helpful here. Also, consider Manual_of_Style.

Proposed merge with Infraorbital groove
Although not the same structure, the naming of these structures makes it confusing for readers to have three separate articles. Having all the "infraorbital" structures in one place is logical, as the foramen is the outward facing hole through which the canal communicates, and the canal is continuous with the groove. Having all this in one place helps readers by saving the "not to be confused with..." and reducing the fragmented approach with which this small canal is dealt with. I'm not proposing this approach for every canal, but I think it is warranted for simplicity here. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

While I get your point, there are a LOT of instances this happens - think optic foramen that is continuous with the optic canal. I think it might be better to have a uniform approach and name each part separately. If the two must be merged, then which name will be kept? Infraorbital foramen is the more popular term, while optic canal is preferred for most - that in itself shouldn't be a deciding factor, but like you've mentioned, these structures aren't 100% identical, and given how minute differences in the head and neck anatomy are often of importance, I think it's worthwhile to leave them as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.83.248 (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Infraorbital foramen
As above Tom (LT) (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)