 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
.PNG)
 | This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
Hi. Should this current disambig be turned into a Wikipedia:Set index articles? I am a bit split in the matter and would appreciate your input. Kind regards JakobSteenberg ( talk) 21:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi
JakobSteenberg - had thought that the three arteries could be merged here but they (two of them) seem to be more involved with separate tables..? Cheers--
Iztwoz (
talk) 20:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC) But I don't think it needs to be a disambiguation.--
Iztwoz (
talk) 20:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- IMO a merger is not the best solution mostly since the respective articles have enough information to stand alone. Should we just keep this as a disambig and instead of a set-index article here I could expand a bit at common iliac artery about what externa and interna supplies?
JakobSteenberg (
talk) 22:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- A similar situation exists with
Carotid artery. Would it be better to just redirect to the common arteries in both situations? Those arteries will have subsections or links to their branches. --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 00:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Lets just keep both disambig-pages and then I will add a bit of information on branches to common carotid and iliac when I get the time. If we turned the disambig-pages into redirects we would only be saving the readers ONE mouse click and there is most likely a good percentages that searches for carotid artery but means the internal and so on. Deal?
- A similar situation exists with
Carotid artery. Would it be better to just redirect to the common arteries in both situations? Those arteries will have subsections or links to their branches. --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 00:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- IMO a merger is not the best solution mostly since the respective articles have enough information to stand alone. Should we just keep this as a disambig and instead of a set-index article here I could expand a bit at common iliac artery about what externa and interna supplies?
JakobSteenberg (
talk) 22:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
|
| This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
| This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
Hi. Should this current disambig be turned into a Wikipedia:Set index articles? I am a bit split in the matter and would appreciate your input. Kind regards JakobSteenberg ( talk) 21:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi
JakobSteenberg - had thought that the three arteries could be merged here but they (two of them) seem to be more involved with separate tables..? Cheers--
Iztwoz (
talk) 20:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC) But I don't think it needs to be a disambiguation.--
Iztwoz (
talk) 20:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- IMO a merger is not the best solution mostly since the respective articles have enough information to stand alone. Should we just keep this as a disambig and instead of a set-index article here I could expand a bit at common iliac artery about what externa and interna supplies?
JakobSteenberg (
talk) 22:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- A similar situation exists with
Carotid artery. Would it be better to just redirect to the common arteries in both situations? Those arteries will have subsections or links to their branches. --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 00:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Lets just keep both disambig-pages and then I will add a bit of information on branches to common carotid and iliac when I get the time. If we turned the disambig-pages into redirects we would only be saving the readers ONE mouse click and there is most likely a good percentages that searches for carotid artery but means the internal and so on. Deal?
- A similar situation exists with
Carotid artery. Would it be better to just redirect to the common arteries in both situations? Those arteries will have subsections or links to their branches. --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 00:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- IMO a merger is not the best solution mostly since the respective articles have enough information to stand alone. Should we just keep this as a disambig and instead of a set-index article here I could expand a bit at common iliac artery about what externa and interna supplies?
JakobSteenberg (
talk) 22:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)