Talk:Node of Ranvier

Untitled

This page requires further cleanup. There are numerous grammatical errors and an occasional lack of simple sentence cohesion. 132.239.90.212 (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Do the nodes of ranvier have anything to do with the sodium pump mechanism (do they actually allow more Na+ and K+ into the axon, depolarizing it further), or do they merely provide a "boost" to the signal as it jumps from node to node?--205.161.211.191 17:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I read about Saltatory Conduction and that answered my question.--205.161.211.191 17:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Nodes of Ranvier is also a rock band (Mabye a screamo one!) Just thoght you'd like to know. *<:-} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.118.16 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of a definition of paranode and juxtaparanode? Jeff Knaggs (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

High Level of Language

The entire "overview" section is completely foreign to me. Observe this segment

• Each node of Ranvier is flanked by paranodal regions where helicoidally wrapped glial loops are attached to the axonal membrane by a septate-like junction. The segment between nodes of Ranvier is termed as the internode, and its outermost part that is in contact with paranodes is referred to as the juxtaparanodal region. The nodes are encapsulated by microvilli steming from the outer aspect of the Schwann cell membrane in the PNS, or by perinodal extensions from astrocytes in the CNS.

Your witness. Paskari (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Lacks explanation

What is the effect of the much larger amount of ion channels in Nodes of Ranvier than in umyelinated axons?

What effect does the prevention of ion leakage by the myelin sheath have on the speed of conductance of the nerve signal? I.e. what happens in more detail: is it the leakage of potassium out of the cell that is most important?

Muddle in the intro

"The contacts between neurons and glial cells display a very high level of spatial and temporal organization in myelinated fibers." (a) What is referred to by the "high level of... temporal organization"? Is this somehow referring to the sequence in time during development? Or to what happens when the neuron fires? Or??? (b) Given that the glial cells are supplying the myelin, the "in myelinated fibers" seems redundant. Gwideman (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested move (rename)

Move Myelin sheath gap to Node of Ranvier? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If you search the Terminologia Histologica for "Ranvier" then you can see that nodes of Ranvier is designated H2.00.06.2.03016. It looks like they have tried to remove the names of scientists from most of the histological terminology. If you step through this page viewer to page 36 then you can see the second row from the bottom: H2.00.06.2.03016 "nodus interruptionis myelini" Meyelin sheath gap. --IONTRANSP (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support per common name, searches of google scholar, PubMed, and google consistently favor "node of ranvier" over "myelin sheath gap" in the number of hits. 137.43.188.135 (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The old history is now located at Talk:Node of Ranvier/old. Jenks24 (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Myelin sheath gap → Node of Ranvier – This is the more common name and the name that users will be more familiar with. LT910001 (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support Support for this name change as for reasons stated in proposal. There are 58 refs to node(s) on the page and 7 for gap(s). Iztwoz (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• What is medical official policy with eponyms in human anatomical names? When reading Gray's Anatomy around 1960 I got the impression that medical officialdom had replaced all eponym names by non-eponyms, e.g. "Poupart's ligament" by "inguinal ligament". 05:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There's definitely been a reduction, but here on Wiki I think WP:COMMONNAME should apply here. "Node of Ranvier" appears to be used much more frequently. The current title ("Myelin sheathe gap") cannot even be graphed on Google n-gram ([1]) --LT910001 (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note. The history of Node of Ranvier needs to be preserved as it was merged. Jenks24 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)I
  • Interesting... would it therefore be appropriate to do this move by cut-and-paste? It raises issues I hadn't thought of. Andrewa (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page history of merged article

Follwing the move above, the page history of this page has been preserved at Talk:Node of Ranvier/old, which now redirects to the article [2], and there is no corresponding page at Node of Ranvier/old, and can't be (not even a redirect) as subpages are disabled in the article namespace.

Is this the best solution? There are a couple of things that worry me about it. In particular, will this edit history be preserved and not accidentally deleted, and will it be picked up by others who reuse our content under our copyleft licences?

I'm tempted to at least redirect Talk:Node of Ranvier/old here rather than to the article. But IMO the history belongs somewhere in the article namespace, rather than at a talk page. Andrewa (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. Sorry, I meant to ping you after the RM to show what I'd done but I forgot. This is how I got told to perform these sorts of moves when I first became an admin (maybe by Anthony Appleyard or Graham87? Can't remember exactly who or where). My understanding is the old practice was to put these at an article subpage (in this case, Node of Ranveir/old) but subpages are not allowed in the article namespace anymore – though they are not technically disabled, you could create Node of Ranvier/old but it would end up on a list somewhere of subpages that should be deleted. So it was then decided they should be put at talk subpages because they are allowed and no one bothers to go looking for talk subpages to delete.

My experience has been that talk subpages are always left alone so the chance of an accidental deletion is minuscule, but I can still understand you concern. There may well be a better way. As for others who reuse our content, if the don't notice Template:Copied at the top of this talk page then it's unlikely they're going to properly attribute regardless of whether the old content is sitting in the talk subspace, article namespace or wherever.

I'd be fine with Talk:Node of Ranvier/old redirecting here, as where it points is irrelevant to the purpose the page serves. You could even change the content to "DO NOT DELETE" or something. But if we decide this stuff would be better somewhere in the article space, in this case would could put it at Node of ranvier or the old title, Myelin sheath gap, in what would effectively be a history swap (and having just linked that and re-read makes me unsure why I don't just always do history swaps in these cases..).

Anyway, it's certainly (to me) an interesting question and I'm more than happy to concede the way I've been doing it could be improved upon. Will drop a note at WT:RM to see if anyone else wants to comment. Jenks24 (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

As a bit of an aside

Went through my raw watchlist and found this list of pages where I'd done this procedure in the past. Obviously if we decide to do this another way they should be moved elsewhere.

• Talk:2012 Aurora shooting/old
• Talk:Abby Cunningham/old
• Talk:Alexandre de Rhodes/old
• Talk:Crash Bandicoot (disambiguation)/old
• Talk:Flag of China/old
• Talk:Human trafficking in Argentina/old
• Talk:Iuliu Bodola/old
• Talk:Molly Meldrum/Old history (not mine, just happened to be on my watchlist)
• Talk:Multiplayer online battle arena/old article (and also Talk:Multiplayer online battle arena/old talk)
• Talk:Peggy Gordon/old
• Talk:Plateau pika/old
• Talk:Pom-pom/old
• Talk:Tapas Paul/old
• Talk:Uthura Rudras/version 2
• Talk:Uva Next/version 2

Jenks24 (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I tend to move the revisions that are in the way into the talk namespace, but I leave an explanation on the talk page rather than a redirect, such as at Talk:Jelly/Old history. Graham87 05:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should call this the "down under move procedure" ;o) I have no problem with it. This method should be documented somewhere?

Here's how Anthony Appleyard responded to a couple of recent requests, though. See Talk:Disney Junior India and Talk:Disney Junior (Southeast Asia). Maybe one of you can take those forks out of their misery. I'm tired of trying to merge moving targets, and figure out which article among a pair of forks has the better content, when neither is sourced. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The "down under move procedure" has the added benefit of taking the history of the fork out of circulation, unlike a "merge", which can easily be undone and turned back into a content fork. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Andrewa, Jenks24, Graham87, Anthony Appleyard, Wbm1058: I always do history swaps and try to leave an edit summary like this. It seems to me the perfect way to avoid later deletion and also the subpage issue (though I can imagine a scenario where we want to redirect to point to an entirely different location, in which case a different procedure would have to be done). Anyway archiving to the talk namespace is listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Edit history of destination page. When I rewrote that page in 2009 I found the talk namespace archiving text in place and preserved it. If anyone thinks it should be tweaked or we should be following a third "old" subpage redirect option, that is one place that should be updated with the information.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Saw your close at Talk:Sky 2 and noticed this discussion seems to have petered out. For whatever it's worth I think I'll start doing history swaps where possible in these cases rather than using the talk subspace. Not sure whether that suggestion should be removed completely from the closing instructions as the history swap does seem the ideal way in most cases. Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Paranode

The word "paranode" is repeatedly used in this article, but is neither defined nor linked. I found the following definition by googling, "The paranode is a region in myelinated nerve fibers where the terminal myelin loops form specialized septate-like junctions with the axolemma." This is not an area I know well. Perhaps an expert could explain more clearly what this means. The definition is from a very expensive (about US $350) copyrighted book, if that matters. Wiki does not explain what a "myelin loop" is either. 190.160.193.50 (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)