Talk:Sesamoid bone

policy on spammy links?
Bartleby' Medical Terminology which is in the reference section is a site so overloaded with spammy ads it crashes my browser 1 in 10 pages I load on the site. What is the policy on linking to sites which are overloaded with spammy advertisement? Machn (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

source
I'm not saying this isn't true, I just would like to see a source for it:

In the hand - two sesamoid bones are located in distal portions of the first metacarpal bone. There is also commonly a sesamoid bone in distal portions of the second metacarpal bone.

Machn (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

See the reference to Gray's Anatomy at the bottom of the page.   Solo Owl   01:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eall Ân Ûle (talk • contribs) I'm not shure this is the right place to post this, but I would like to mention that the lenticular process of the incus is no longer considered a sesamoid bone, merely a process of the incus itself. Hereby I post the source of the proposed change. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21986927 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentful (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Detail Information for X ray and Other Imaging
Two points: often an image is shown to demonstrate the subject of an article but the image shows more than one possible area which could be the pertinent subject of the illustration (especially with medical imagery) and often neither the written "details" of the image nor the subject article itself will have a description defining the position of the subject in the image/illustration. Also there are often additional but unavoidable and (strictly speaking) superfluous (to the article but curiosity stoking) unexplained characteristics shown in some images. For example, in the second image of this article, the X ray image has written on it some "per-centage" ranges of some of the bones. Is this a measure of the size of the actual bone wrt the expected size for a person of that age? The article does mention that the bone size, if it is diminutive can be strong evidence of a delayed start of puberty so commentary of this detail would not be intrusive. Nevertheless of intrusivity, explanations of non pertinent to the article characteristics would also aid the reader in isolating the pertinent subject sought within the image. What is obvious to a radiologist's eye can be almost imperceptible to ignorant mere mortals.Ecstatist (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

After studying the 3rd and 4th images which denote by color, the "prevalence" range(not size) of the various bones, I realize the similar intention of the notes written in the 2nd image but this is by inference because its depiction is different (no color) and there is no explanation. Ecstatist (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)