Talk:Oculomotor nerve

Orbit
What is an orbit? This being in the second sentence is most confusing. --129.215.90.4 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a wikilink to the appropriate article. Attaboy (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

make a list of pathology for CNIII
title

Proposed Merge
I support this merger, considering the small size of all the articles. Attaboy (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with branches of oculomotor nerve
Proposed merge with Inferior branch of oculomotor nerve

I propose a merge because: Proposed merge with Superior branch of oculomotor nerve
 * There is no need to have two tiny articles on parts of the nerve when this content could be covered in the main article.
 * The content covered in the main article would have more context and, by virtue of this, bemore accessible to readers
 * These articles are tiny in scope and needlessly fragmented, and it would not be much trouble to cover them with the main article on the optic nerve. LT910001 (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

See above. LT910001 (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * LT9, these [responding to above at optic nerve talk page] are a bad proposal. I do support merging the superior and inferior branches of the oculomotor nerve into the oculomotor nerve article. I might also be sympathetic if you had wanted to merge the optic nerve with the optic tract and the optic chiasm. However, it makes no sense to merge the optic nerve with the oculomotor nerve, and certainly not unless you were intending to merge all 12+ cranial nerves together. (Understand that the optic and occulomotor nerves are functionally, developmentally and anatomically separate structures, and that even together these two are still far from being the only cranial nerves of the eye.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops, hah! Yes I occasionally am thinking about one thing and my fingers need to keep up. The tagged pages, however, all point to oculomotor nerve. You very diplomatically point out that I appear to be proposing a merge with the wrong cranial nerve, very accidentally. I have moved this conversation to the correct talk page. --LT910001 (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, this makes more sense! I can't see any reason for this change to be opposed (as the potential difference in content is so small), so hopefully someone will boldly go right ahead and perform it. Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I have completed these merges. --LT910001 (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)