This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest this article be moved to "mesonephric duct". I know "Wolffian duct" gives slightly more google results, and therefore is slightly more commonly used. However, mesonephric duct is more descriptive when comparing with other ducts, e.g. the paramesonephric duct, or the final "nephric" duct. In short, it is a better name. Mikael Häggström 17:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
As a non-expert, I would say that sounds logical.
IceDragon64 ( talk) 00:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Surely the ducts do not both develop and wither? Is it not fail to develop and wither?
IceDragon64 ( talk) 00:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
According to 6th edition of Moore and Persaud "Before we are born - Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defacts", the prostate is NOT derived from the mesonephric duct (as stated in the article), but rather the urogenital sinus. Anybody know what's correct?
( Grillspyd ( talk) 08:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC))
Please add comments on histology too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.151.172 ( talk) 04:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Gray19 with color.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
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.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Gray19 with color.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC) |
I propose this (more appropriate) merge because:
With no objections I have completed this merge. I hope that by centralising this duplication into this single page the article will receive more attention and continue to improve.-- LT910001 ( talk) 07:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
That's the question I wanted answered and this article didn't help me. -- Waqqashanafi ( talk) 16:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest this article be moved to "mesonephric duct". I know "Wolffian duct" gives slightly more google results, and therefore is slightly more commonly used. However, mesonephric duct is more descriptive when comparing with other ducts, e.g. the paramesonephric duct, or the final "nephric" duct. In short, it is a better name. Mikael Häggström 17:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
As a non-expert, I would say that sounds logical.
IceDragon64 ( talk) 00:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Surely the ducts do not both develop and wither? Is it not fail to develop and wither?
IceDragon64 ( talk) 00:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
According to 6th edition of Moore and Persaud "Before we are born - Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defacts", the prostate is NOT derived from the mesonephric duct (as stated in the article), but rather the urogenital sinus. Anybody know what's correct?
( Grillspyd ( talk) 08:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC))
Please add comments on histology too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.151.172 ( talk) 04:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Gray19 with color.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
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.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Gray19 with color.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC) |
I propose this (more appropriate) merge because:
With no objections I have completed this merge. I hope that by centralising this duplication into this single page the article will receive more attention and continue to improve.-- LT910001 ( talk) 07:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
That's the question I wanted answered and this article didn't help me. -- Waqqashanafi ( talk) 16:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)