Talk:Sacrum

          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follows the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and uses high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 

Untitled

Can someone comment on the origin of the name sacrum? --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 01:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Several related possibilities from a Google search for sacrum etymology:

You want to incorporate this? -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 01:42, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)



This post really needs to be cleaned up so a general audience (e.g., me, not medically trained) can read it. Any volunteers? --67.170.23.71 22:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Anatomy on Wikipedia is in a poor state. I've been away from gross anatomy for too many years to care enough for it. You can try Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine JFW | T@lk 12:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hope latest small revision helps a little Lxs602 23:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)



Simply cutting and pasting Grays (especially the free 1917 edition) seems stupid to me, and not really in the ilk of Wikipedia - this shold not be an encyclopedic entry as it contains anatomical description from the outset instead of starting "base-up"

Main problem is that it is Gray's - medical-based students use Gray's as a reference manual and not as a learning tool, mainly it's hard to read and digest : Moore and Daley's Clinically orientated anatomy is a popular choice.

Simply cutting and pasting Grays because it was free and in the public domain (especially the free 1917 edition) seems stupid to me, and not really in the ilk of Wikipedia.

Surely there must be enough anatomists around to tart it up to make it more Encyclopedic rather than shrouded in medical terminology to alienate a non-plussed up reader?

The anatomy pages here are one of the best things about Wikipedia! Instead of wading through pages of Moore and Dalley, for a quick answer you can search wikipedia, and Voila! ...there is a page with concise description and a picture.



Why "The sacrum (or sacrum) is..."? Is that a typo or is there something being indicated by the formatting?

This information is not necssarily true.

↑Jump back a section

Variations

clicking the citations in this section brings you to a geocities page that no longer exists. --SCooley138 (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

↑Jump back a section

Too human-centric

The article starts off saying how the Sacrum is a part of vertebrate anatomy. But the entire article appears to be relevant only to human anatomy, for example it never once mentions a tail. Can someone with knowledge please expand the article beyond just human anatomy, and cover more of VERTEBRATE anatomy? Roidroid (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

↑Jump back a section

File:Anterior surface of sacrum.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Anterior surface of sacrum.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

↑Jump back a section

File:Posterior surface of sacrum.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Posterior surface of sacrum.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

↑Jump back a section
Last modified on 30 October 2011, at 17:14