Talk:Ventral cochlear nucleus

Neuroscience Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anatomy: Neuroanatomy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.

Requested move 04 April 2016

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: Moved. A solid consensus is now seen, following the relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anterior cochlear nucleus → Ventral cochlear nucleus – To match Dorsal cochlear nucleus – Iztwoz (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iztwoz and Dicklyon: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but doesn't look like a technical; where's the argument in support of this name? Where did the current name come from? Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is that the posterior cochlear nucleus is entered as the dorsal cochlear nucleus - widely preferred on ngrams and much more widely referred to; it is a nonsense to have the anterior cochlear nucleus instead of referring to it as the ventral c.n. Dorsal - ventral; anterior - posterior.--Iztwoz (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support to match dorsal. A TA preferred synonym ([1]) but not the preferred term. That said, much more widely used: [2]. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – it's not about matching dorsal. The article currently says its topic is the AVCN; there's also the PVCN; together these are the VCN. But what exactly is the topic here? I'd like to see someone make a coherent argument based on looking at the article, not just at the title. Dicklyon (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thanks for the input Dicklyon - hadn't really looked at subject just seen it often referred to as 'ventral cochlear nucleus'. Seems that the page does need to be re-named to the acknowledged 'ventral cochlear nucleus' and the content changed to refer to both parts of this - the 'posterior ventral cochlear nucleus' is not covered anywhere. As it is it's very unclear - the infobox just refers to ventral cochlear nucleus. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment - notifying at WT:MED and WT:ANATOMY to try to get a wider range of opinion from people who work in these areas. — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support more widely used...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The terms "ventral cochlear nucleus" and "anterior cochlear nucleus" both name the same structure, as does the term "anteroventral cochlear nucleus". However according to a Google Scholar search the "ventral" and "anteroventral" forms are both used about 100 times more widely than the "anterior" form. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment ignores the posteroventral cochlear nucleus, PVCN; it's part of VCN but not part of AVCN; I agree that ACN is an odd one. Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support The old name is wrong. The correct names and their relations are given here. --Saidmann (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.