Talk:Bone tissue

Any thoughts of putting in a disambiguation page for bones (organ) versus bones (tissue)? WLU 23:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

comment relocated from article pg

DOESNT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN TRABECULAR AND COMPACT BONE ~UserIP:213.48.73.94 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Figma (talk • contribs) 05:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

DIAGRAM IS UNHELPFUL AND NOT PROPERLY LABELED FOR GENERAL READERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.62.245 (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

Thoughts on merging compact and spongy bone into this article? All three are short, there's a fair bit of duplication, a couple of headings could easily be thrown in to assist with wikilinks in other articles. Seems like it would make sense. WLU 14:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 25 November 2014

The following is a closed 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: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Osseous tissue → Bone tissue – "Bone tissue" is the common name, and much more readily understandable by readers. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:38, 25 November 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 – "Bone tissue" is used much more widely in contemporary publications than "osseous tissue", as shown here and further confirmed by Google Scholar searches: [1], [2].
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME if not WP:UE Red Slash 23:42, 26 November 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.

Proposed merge with Bone cell

Bone tissue is formed from bone cells. No need to have separate articles when they have such a similar scope. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support – with reservations. There is such a thing as acellular bone, currently not mentioned in either of these articles. Acellular bone was important in the evolution of bone, and remains important in many extant teleost fish. I support merging the articles and adding further content which address these issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Both are relatively small pages that cover many overlapping topics Funkyman99 (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)  Done

Proposed merge with Cancellous bone

These two types of bone are related and should be displayed together. This will help readers and future editors by centralising information, and decrease needless confusion and fragmentation. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Done

Proposed merge with Cortical bone

As above Tom (LT) (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Support all the above - but - is there any reason why the three articles cannot be merged with Bone. As it is there is duplication on all pages and the Bone page has plenty of room. It would make a much more comprehensive page.--Iztwoz (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I worry that we will be rolling some important topics into the main article here and think it would be better that we have a general overview for most readers at Bone, and a more technical coverage of these types of bone in greater detail here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)  Done

Proposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Chhandama (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

---

• Much of page is duplicated on target page. Difficult to know what to include on this page or leave on target page particularly Clinical significance items. Individual bone cells would still have their own pages. A merge would not create a very large article. Iztwoz (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• It does look like it might not need to be an article on its own. I support a merge. However, it may be difficult to incorporate the text in a coherent way.Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 07:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Most of the headings at bone tissue are reproduced to a marginally lesser extent at bone. PriceDL (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.