Talk:Levator ani

Untitled

why has this been tagged as confusing? Someone tagged it and didn't explain themselves on the talk page. A little guidance would be nice. i just looked over it and its fine, its in keeping with the other anatomy pages and makes sense in terms of anatomy. I added the bit on the levator ani being the "tail-wagging" muscle in animals, but see Talk:Coccygeus muscle. There may be reason to at least make mention of that muscle as well, though the relationship is not yet clear from the sources I've found. Iskunk (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's lasted nine years and is somewhat humourous. Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 12:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

It's unclear how the 'Tendinous arch of levator ani' which redirects here actually fits into the 'Levator ani'. Are they the same thing (in which case this should be stated) or is one simply a part of the other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.161.148 (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Iliococcygeus muscle

Page is a small stub and is a part of Levator ani better presented as subtopic Iztwoz (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support I arrived here about to propose this merge myself. It's confusing and unnecessary to have four separate articles on piees of the levator ani. By having them all as one article, we help readers by providing more context to what they're reading and reducing needless fragmentation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Pubococcygeus muscle

page would be better treated as subtopic of Levator ani Iztwoz (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Klbrain (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Levator ani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060521001350/http://webtools.delmarlearning.com/sample_chapters/0766811425_02.pdf to http://webtools.delmarlearning.com/sample_chapters/0766811425_02.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Ineffective in treating incontinence

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010551.pub3/full

Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 11:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Fix merged content

This article was merged with two others in this edit in 2017. However, the merged content was copy-pasted into the Pubococcygeus and Puborectalis sections in the middle of the article (with the infoboxes), and not merged with existing sections. The resulting layout of the article is confusing, with the structure and function of different muscles being described all over the place. Hopefully someone with more knowledge about the subject matter would be able to clean this up. –Sonicwave ^talk 22:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible inaccurate image

The image described "3D medical illustration presenting Levator ani" seems to have the labels for the Pubococcygeus and Puborectalis muscles swapped, but I don't have the experience to know this for certain. I am only basing this conclusion off of the descriptions in the article and a quick look at some other diagrams. Could someone confirm or deny this?--PNDB (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)