Talk:Tibia

Hairline fractures

what are tibial hairline fracures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.105.167.235 (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2004‎

Jewelry

ive heard of the term "tibia" used in the making of jewelry. what kind of tibia is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.1.96 (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2006

Please sign and give your posts a header, also the talk page isn't the place to be asking that. If you read the article you would know. --Wolverineh8ter 01:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I really don't see why not (and I'm not the same poster as above).

Also, does anybody know why does it hurts so much when you hit the tibia? --190.40.99.35 01:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No cushioning to absorb the blow. Please don't use the talk page to ask questions, it's meant to be used to improve the main page. WLU 01:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Articulating Bones

Hello. "and patella" should be removed from this entry in the first section as it doesn't articulate with the tibia. The Wiki entry for patella has a good diagram showing how it only articulates with the femur. Thanks! Kismet68 (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Strongest Bone

"But, the fact is tibia is the strongest bone."

The term "strongest bone" is not very precise. The person who wrote this probably meant that it can bear the most axial load before failure, but finding a real source for this information (if its true) would be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.251.144 (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple things I notice

Is that we have a lot of section headings, sometimes for just a sentence or two. And it seems that the language used sometimes requires a knowledge of anatomy. I think we should make edits to make it more approachable for people who don't know anatomical terms. Biosthmors (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ossification of tibia

I have proposed this merge, between the 'ossification' page and this article, because:

• I feel it is needlessly fragmented to have two separate pages.
• It is standard on Anatomy pages, and recommended in WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, for 'Development' sections to be displayed on the same page.
• Additionally, this page is small and it would give more context to have the information displayed in a central location, rather than hidden on a separate article.
• If necessary, this article could be expanded at a later date. LT910001 (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done

Proposed merge with Lower extremity of tibia

No need for separate articles, can easily be integrated into main article Tom (LT) (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Body of tibia

as above Tom (LT) (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Upper extremity of tibia

As above Tom (LT) (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I would argue against on the ground that all articles (upper, lower and shaft) have enough information and additional information compared to tibia to not be merged (although upper extremity is a bit weak). If all the articles where to be merged one of two things could/would happen. Information (small details, granted) would be lost in the merger or the anatomical description in the tibia article would be come (too/even more) complicated (or simply to long) for the average reader.

I know you and I had this general discussion before, but I fell this merger would be moving backwards. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, JakobSteenberg, and I admit I have chewed over your reply for a few days. I think in answering this there is a few things we ought to consider:

1. Firstly, we are essentially discussing how to arrange content that's been taken from Gray's Anatomy 1918 (now 96 years old). In Grey's Anatomy, being a book these topics are not presented on separate pages but continuously.
2. The topics are generally small in length (less than 1 1/2 page) and could easily be integrated into the main article producing an article much shorter than many WP articles.
3. If you mean that integrating the content will make a parent article confusing, that state already exists and is probably related to the technical phrasing of many of the subarticles
4. I do not believe that any of these topics ("Lower extremity of...") are independently notable
5. Fragmenting these topics makes it very hard for users to use and limits the educational and readable value
6. Fragmenting articles results in topics such as Femur with over 20 subarticles, most of which are only a few sentences. This makes it very difficult for readers who want to get a grip of a topic. Yes we should branch off notable subarticles, such as the trochanters, but certainly not unnecessarily fragment topics.

I'm talking above specifically about "extremity of" subarticles, not other subarticles. I'm not in favour of merging all anatomical articles, but I do not think "extremity of..." articles should be separate. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support merge; all three are short and the split feels very artificial. --WS (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support merge. I reconsidered my position on the matter and support a merger. Sorry for flip-flopping. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done for the 3 above proposals. Klbrain (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Do fishes have tibia?

As stated in the first paragraph of the article, all the vertebrates have tibia, this may be misleading. But I'm also not sure, that's why asking. Sntshkmr60 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)