Talk:Leg (anatomy)

The content that originally appeared on this talk page's article concerned solely the human leg, and that article was moved (renamed) accordingly. A page that then had the title this talk page now has, containing discussion (on human legs) that occurred prior to that move, was moved (renamed) to Talk:Human leg. I regret my carelessness (at a time when i should have realized the need) in not removing before now the redirect that resulted, whose continued existence might have led some to misunderstand Talk:Human leg as being the location to discuss the Leg article. As there is no discussion there pertaining to other species' legs, no discussion was misplaced to there, but some may have never occurred as a result of it looking to someone like there was no appropriate place for it.
--Jerzy (t) 18:17, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

This should probably be at leg (anatomy). --Yath 04:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The following was written to address that idea a different aspect of that, before i saw you had commented:
In this contribution i am providing two kinds of perspective that i have not previously committed to writing, in hopes it will help in the current flurry of editing:

• The previous structure of the leg-focused articles was not a haphazard one, and the new structure that i've worked it into in the last 24 hours is a closely related one. Specifically: IMO it should be clear that
  • the human leg is an area whose interest and volume are substantial enough to support an article specific to it;
  • the rest of the topic of animal legs is also substantial (although it is unlikely to "write itself" as rapidly as the human-leg part;
  • both would suffer by being combined in one article. (The structure would be "lopsided" and confusing, with the effect of interfering with ease of information access to the information.)
  • two approaches seem candidates for the other-than-human article:
    1. an article that doesn't explicitly exclude the human leg, and covers both the characterisitics of legs that apply across a wide range of species and the narrower info that doesn't duplicate the content of the human leg article.
    2. an article that explicitly restricts itself to non-human legs, and discusses the broader topics on an ad hoc basis.
  • the first of these approaches seems, in starting from scratch, to have invited inclusion of human-leg info in great detail, in effect moving rapidly toward a single article for human legs and all others;
  • the second might turn out to cramp the inclusion of "every mammalian leg does/must"-style info, but the effect of its explicit and clear scope may be worth that awkwardness; the greater inertia against drifting off into a single article, once both articles are substantially developed, might make it more feasible to return to the first approach later.
• I will add more here on another topic: my perception that an unusual kind of "meta-info" (which i've just restored) is justified by other unusual aspects of these two articles. But only after at least 12 hours.

--Jerzy (t) 05:31, 2005 Apr 30 & 02:45, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

This is really pretty simple. The main article belongs at leg (anatomy). It contains a link to human leg at the appropriate spot. --Yath 17:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it is, tho in the stress and rush of noting your earlier contrib in the midst of our ed-conf, i misunderstood you as disagreeing with the complex argument i had been working up. (Kind of a travelling-salesman/jack-handle situation, i'm embarrassed to say!) What you suggest is indeed consistent, and has three virtues my approach lacked:

1. It avoids excluding human legs completely;
2. It is more accurate than using "nonhuman", which arguably does not entail "living";
3. It is scalable: leg (anatomy) will continue to work as well as it will today, even after Lobster leg and Horse leg have followed the example of Human leg in growing far enough to need their own pages and having most of the discussion of them moved from leg (anatomy) to those more specific pages.

I'll go ahead and implement your idea, and welcome your feedback on the details that IMO go with it. --Jerzy (t) 02:45, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

item for plural form?

Now, there is a confusing item with whose title is the plural form, the last one; it reads: Legs. It just points back to the same page. I can't understand what is meant by that.--Imz 22:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)